An Evaluation of the Critical Success

Factors to implement Enterprise 2.0

solutions within Belgian organizations

2011

By Arnaud Wattiez
P a g e |1
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................2
Abstract........................................................................................................................................4
2. Literature review..................................................................................................................5
2.1. Introduction and objectives..........................................................................................5
2.2. What is Enterprise 2.0?................................................................................................6
2.2.1. Definitions of Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0............................................................6
2.2.2. Overview of Enterprise 2.0 solutions....................................................................7
2.3. Benefits of Enterprise 2.0 solutions..............................................................................8
2.3.1. Usage and Benefits...............................................................................................8
2.3.2. Relevance to a specific organization...................................................................10
2.4. Risks of Enterprise 2.0 implementations....................................................................10
2.5. Review of the CSF for implementing Enterprise 2.0 solutions....................................13
2.5.1. Introduction and organizational strategies.........................................................13
2.5.2. Implementation strategies and scope................................................................13
2.5.3. User adoption strategies....................................................................................17
2.5.4. Cultural aspects..................................................................................................21
2.5.5. Governance........................................................................................................22
2.5.6. IT aspects............................................................................................................24
2.5.7. About return on investment...............................................................................25
2.6. Summary....................................................................................................................26
3. Research Design.................................................................................................................28
3.1. Introduction and objectives........................................................................................28
3.2. Aim and objectives of the research............................................................................28
3.3. Choosing the type of research: quantitative, qualitative or mixed.............................28
3.4. Qualitative approaches...............................................................................................29
3.5. Sampling methods and criteria...................................................................................29
3.6. Interview schedule.....................................................................................................30
3.7. Methodology for data analysis...................................................................................31
3.8. Pilot interviews...........................................................................................................33
4. Research Results................................................................................................................34
4.1. Introduction................................................................................................................34
4.2. Subject demographics................................................................................................34
P a g e |2
 4.3. Implementation status in Belgium..............................................................................35
4.4. Implementation Scope...............................................................................................36
4.4.1. About the origin of the implementation.............................................................36
4.4.2. About the scope of the implementation.............................................................37
4.5. User adoption strategies............................................................................................39
4.6. Cultural aspects..........................................................................................................41
4.7. Governance aspects...................................................................................................42
4.8. Role of IT....................................................................................................................43
4.9. Others.........................................................................................................................43
5. Discussion, conclusions and recommendations.................................................................45
5.1. Introduction and objectives........................................................................................45
5.2. Implementation scope................................................................................................45
5.3. User adoption strategies............................................................................................47
5.4. Cultural aspects..........................................................................................................48
5.5. Governance aspects...................................................................................................49
5.6. Role of IT....................................................................................................................50
5.7. Others.........................................................................................................................51
5.8. Summary....................................................................................................................51
6. Limitations of the research and future research................................................................54
7. Reference list......................................................................................................................57
8. Appendices.........................................................................................................................63
Annex 1: List of Enterprise 2.0 tools and their enterprise use................................................63
Annex 2: Interview schedule..................................................................................................66
Annex 3: Invitation email.......................................................................................................69
Annex 4: Interview transcript sample.....................................................................................70
Annex 5: Data reduction process............................................................................................75

P a g e |3
Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the critical success factors for implementing Enterprise 2.0
solutions within Belgian organizations.

Enterprise 2.0 refers to the use of emergent social software platforms – coming from the open
consumer web 2.0 - in an organization context, to enhance collaboration and knowledge
sharing amongst employees.

A comprehensive literature review on Enterprise 2.0 implementations was conducted and

discussed. A list of seven theoretical critical success factors is established and discussed, based
on implementation best practices and risk analysis. The factors concern various
implementation aspects such as the scope, user adoption strategies, cultural aspects,
governance, risks management and IT aspects.

The proposed list of critical factors is reviewed and its applicability is confronted to the Belgian
market through a fieldwork study. The primary research is conducted using a qualitative
approach and semi-structured interviews of consultants and business managers from Belgian
organizations that have already implemented such solutions or that consider implementing
them in the following months. A total of twelve subjects working for nine Belgian knowledge
based companies are consulted.

The conclusions and recommendations of the research show that only five critical success
factors amongst the seven are applicable in the current context - with slight modifications and
identify one additional factor. The research shows that Enterprise 2.0 implementations are not
fundamentally different from traditional IT systems implementations but they present some
specificity that needs to be addressed.

The limitations of the research are highlighted, in particular the limited amount of
interviewees and the current implementation status in Belgium – with a lot of social
experiments but a lack of major Enterprise 2.0 references. Several suggestions for future
research conclude the paper.

P a g e |4
 2. Literature review

2.1. Introduction and objectives

This chapter provides an overview of the relevant literature and existing theories about
Enterprise 2.0. It defines the main concepts, outlines the solutions and considers the benefits
and risks linked to such implementations.

Based on the risks review and on research from the lead authors, it aims then to identify and
discuss theoretical success factors for implementing Enterprise 2.0 solutions in general.

These candidate factors will be confronted later to the Belgian context during the primary
research.

In the context of this paper, the term “implementation” refers not only to the deployment
phase of the solution, but also to the first months of user adoption phase and setup of the
operational processes.

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE

Deploy
Deploy
ment
ment User adoption
Operations phase
phase
phase phaseoperations setup

Start Couple of months Time

Figure 1. Implementation phase vs. Operations phase
Source : the author

Due to the constant evolution of Enterprise 2.0 solutions and the fast changing literature
sources, the scope of this review is based upon literature and current thinking up to
September 2010.

2.2. What is Enterprise 2.0?

2.2.1. Definitions of Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0

The phrase “Web 2.0” refers to a perceived second-generation of web-based communities and
hosted services which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing between users (Newman and
P a g e |5
Thomas, 2009). O'Reilly's (2005) defines it as the business revolution in the computer industry
caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for
success on that new platform.

A recurrent characteristic of Web 2.0 is the concept of user-generated content (Newman and
Thomas, 2009) and value creation from participation (Dawson, 2009b). Another one is that
Web 2.0 systems – including social media sites - are viral, meaning they spread quickly using
word-of-mouth and the more they grow, the more useful they become—leading to additional
growth. This is what Metcalfe (2007) names the “network effect.”

Web 2.0 originally described technologies that were primarily used in the open consumer web.
However similar tools soon became used by organizations, both internally to increase
efficiency and productivity, and externally to communicate with customers and other
stakeholders. (Dawson, 2009b)

The term “Enterprise 2.0” was coined by McAfee (2006) to describe how these technologies
could be used on organization's intranets and extranets, and to convey the impact they would
have on business.

The information systems behind Enterprise 2.0 solution rely on what McAfee (2009a) defines
as Emergent Social Software Platforms (named after “ESSPs”):

- Social software enables people to rendezvous, connect, or collaborate through

computer-mediated communication and to form online communities

- Platforms are digital environments in which contributions and interactions are globally
visible and persistent over time; by opposite to channels - like email or instant
messaging – that leave no trace of collaboration patterns. (McAfee, 2006)

- Emergent means that the software is freeform - rather than having imposed work
structures like publication workflows or decision rights. It contains mechanisms like
links and tags to let the patterns and structure inherent in people's interactions
become visible over time, giving them the ability to quickly and easily filter, sort and
prioritize the flood of new online content.
McAfee (2006) refines his definition of Enterprise 2.0 as the use of ESSPs by organizations in
pursuit of their goals and to do their work better.

P a g e |6
2.2.2. Overview of Enterprise 2.0 solutions

The list of Enterprise 2.0 technologies is fairly extensive, since new web 2.0 tools appear every
day on internet (Newman and Thomas, 2009). Dawson (2009b) lists the following Enterprise
2.0 tools:

Social
Blogs Wikis Podcasts Video sharing RSS tools
networks

Social Microblogging
Tagging Mashups Virtual Worlds
Bookmarking platforms

Figure 2. Enterprise 2.0 tools

Source : the author

A brief description of each tool and its enterprise use is available in Annex 1. This list by
Dawson is widely accepted amongst the lead authors and can therefore be used as reference
during the primary research.

Cook (2008) proposes a relevant classification of ESSPs using a “4 Cs” formality/interaction

matrix:
FORMALITY

CONNECTION COLLABORATION

INTERACTION

COMMUNICATION COOPERATION

Figure 3. “4 Cs” formality/interaction matrix

Source : Cook (2008)

Communication platforms allow people to converse with others. Examples include blogs,
social presence and virtual worlds. Cooperation platforms or sharing software enables people
to share content with others. Image and video sharing, social bookmarking are examples of
sharing tools. Collaboration tools encourage people to collaborate with each other on
particular problems, directly and indirectly in both central and distributed ways. Examples
include wikis. Finally networking technologies - like social networks - make it possible for

P a g e |7
people to make connections with and between both content and other people. Cook (2008)
states that each ESSP will tend to overlap multiple classifications.

This classification approach by Cook may be used by organizations that want to focus their
Enterprise 2.0 effort; it is a tool for decision support regarding which ESSP to implement,
depending on the pursued objectives.

2.3. Benefits of Enterprise 2.0 solutions

2.3.1. Usage and Benefits

Research suggests that Enterprise 2.0 solutions are used to communicate and collaborate both
outside the organization - with partners and customers for example - and internally. In this
paper, only the internal usage is considered. All interactions between the organization and
the external world – for marketing purpose for example - are out of scope of this paper and
constitute potential areas for future research.

McAfee (2009a) describes the main functions of ESSPs within an organization: group editing,
simplified authoring, broadcast search (including expertise search), network formation and
maintenance and self-organization (via tagging). Furness (2008) completes this list with a
filtering usage (via RSS feeds).

According to a study by AIIM Market Intelligence Industry Watch (2009), the biggest drivers for
Enterprise 2.0 implementations are a better use of shared knowledge and increased
collaboration and responsiveness. Dawson (2009b) proposes three key areas of potential
benefits for Enterprise 2.0 solutions: productivity and efficiency, knowledge and staff
engagement, and reputation.

Productivity & efficiency

This first area of benefits appears to be controversial, as the reduction of staff productivity and
the fear of losing control are two commonly identified risks for Enterprise 2.0 implementations
(see §2.4 Risks of Enterprise 2.0 implementations). Nevertheless, most authors consider those
as perceived risks - rather than real ones – and state that they must be balanced against value
creation.

In particular Dawson’s research (2009b) shows that ESSPs increase productivity by allowing
people and team work more effectively trough quicker access to resources and easier
collaboration.

P a g e |8
Regarding efficiency, Cook (2008) argues that these platforms enable new approaches to
collaboration that cut across organizational silos and unleash the power of human capital. A
study by Butler Group (2008) suggests that they allow organizations to overcome barriers of
time and location in order to better suit their business needs and their customers’
requirements. Newman and Thomas (2009) pursue and suggest that by providing less
structure, fewer restrictions, and by letting the users lead the way, ESSPS help people in the
organization to better collaborate. They state that knowledge workers within organizations
tend to collaborate poorly as hierarchical structures prevent social and content discovery
between different divisions. Division heads act as barriers to the exchange of ideas and ESSPs
tend to flatten those barriers, hence the perception of losing control – especially for the
middle management.

Knowledge sharing

Dawson (2009b) suggests that ESSPs allow an easier and quicker access to relevant expertise
and organizational capabilities, either in people or embedded in documents and process.
McAfee (2006) argues that ESSPs enables more efficient knowledge generation, capture,
sharing and retention: the sharing of knowledge, expertise, experience, and insight - through
authoring and group editing platform rather than channels (like email) - is done in a way that is
persistent and easily consultable.

Most authors seem to agree that this second area of benefits appears generally very quickly
after the implementation of Enterprise 2.0 solutions – if user participation is sufficient and the
“network effect” evocated by Metcalfe (2007) is reached.

Reputation

Finally, Dawson points (2009b) that it increases the attractiveness of the employer, as younger
staff in particular judge potential employers by how innovative and open they are. He is of the
opinion that employees are both attracted to and more likely to stay working longer in
organizations that support stronger social interaction.

2.3.2. Relevance to a specific organization

Dawson’s research (2009b) indicated that the potential benefits and risks of Enterprise 2.0
apply differently in the organizations, depending on parameters like the organization size, the
geographical distribution of the employees, the age distribution, the industry type, the
knowledge intensity of the work, the regulations in place, the organizational culture or the
stakeholder outlook.
P a g e |9
This suggests that the critical success factors identified and tested in the Belgian context might
also be affected by such parameters. This topic falls out of the scope of the primary research;
it is a known limitation and may be part of a future research.

2.4. Risks of Enterprise 2.0 implementations

The identification of the risks associated with Enterprise 2.0 implementations is an important
step to consider when determining the critical success factors – as some factors may directly
result from risk management or risk mitigation.

The majority of the risks investigated by the lead authors in the literature relate to governance
issues. When managing risks in Enterprise 2.0 implementations, Dawson (2009b) recommends
to carefully distinguishing between the perception and reality of risks; to balance those risks
against value creation and finally to recognize real risks, in order to eliminate, minimize, or
mitigate them.

McAfee (2009a) proposes a classification of the risks associated with Enterprise 2.0:

1. Risk of Inappropriate behavior and content, either deliberate or inadvertent

McAfee minimizes this risk. At first anonymity is not applied in most Enterprise 2.0
implementations – while it is the norm in Web 2.0 and on the internet. People are
therefore much more likely to be cautious and circumspect. At second, self-policing exist
to limit inappropriate behaviors, through informal leaders and influence peers.

2. Risk of inaccurate information

Both McAfee and Dawson (2009b) consider that the self-policing is very often an effective
antidote to inaccurate information: community members do a thorough job of policing
inaccurate content, which can be easily corrected or removed.

3. Risk of embarrassing content (for example, a negative review on a product)

Newman and Thomas (2009) recommend establishing and clearly communicating staff
policies, establishing so the basic rules and guidelines for how staff work. Newman and
Thomas consider that it is the most direct mechanism for implementing governance and

P a g e | 10
 state that most of the organizations have already established such policies that remain
adequate for Enterprise 2.0 solutions.
However according to research by AIIM Market Intelligence Industry Watch (2009),
content generated within Enterprise 2.0 applications is the least well managed of content
types: while nearly all businesses have policies on the use and content of emails, only 30%
set similar policies for blogs, wikis and forums.

4. Risk of non-compliance with laws, regulations, intellectual property or policies

Schneider (2005) points out that certain figures, performance indexes, technology and
process descriptions, or even customer feedback could be considered valuable corporate
secrets, accessible only by a select few authorized users. Dawson (2009b) considers in
particular security risks, where confidential and competitive information can be leaked
externally.
For Furness (2008), Bloggers or contributors to wikis and social networks need to realize
that rules surrounding corporate disclosure, discrimination and other regulations apply as
much here as in any other document, email, memo or speech created. McAfee (2009a)
recommends the setup of a compliance department that handles that kind of threat, and
education for the workforce about inappropriate behaviors and communications in the
workplace. Dawson (2009b) recommends a content auditing process, monitoring both the
content of the application and its configuration.
Research by AIIM Market Intelligence Industry Watch (2009) concludes that these are
serious governance issues that need to be addresses. Whilst heavy hander control runs
contra to the whole user-contribution ethos of Enterprise 2.0, policies need to be set and
records kept, in order to avoid or defend potential legal or compliance accusations.

Dawson (2009b) outlines the following additional risks:

5. Risk of reduced staff productivity

He recommends to establish appropriate policies in the organization, and to monitor
usage. Making these tools inaccessible could prohibit activities that are useful to the
business.

6. IT Security risks
Dawson considers this as a perceived but inaccurate risk, if existing security policies are
rigorous; there are essentially no additional IT security risks with Enterprise 2.0 than with
traditional systems.

P a g e | 11
Most of these identified risks stretch the importance of considering governance aspects in the
determination of the critical success factors.

Furness (2008) outlines the following additional risks:

7. Risk of losing control

Internal collaboration through wikis, social networks and other Web 2.0 tools is horizontal
by nature, drawing on the expertise of the networked many, rather than on teams of few
experts. Executives seem to no longer control the flow of information. Dawson (2009b)
states that healthy organizational cultures are correlated to high levels of unstructured
internal communication.

This identified risk suggests that corporate culture aspects should also be investigated in the
determination of the factors.

Other risks associated with the user adoption phase were previously identified – in particular
the risk of poor participation and its implications on not reaching the “network effect”. The
actions required in order to mitigate these risks and more generally the user adoption
strategies constitute another area of research for critical success factors.

Finally, Dawson considers the risks of not implementing Enterprise 2.0 solutions, among which
the unauthorized use of web tools and the increasing difficulty in attracting and retaining
talented staff. Cook (2008) states that the member of the generation Y 1 will enter the
workforce and bring their collaboration tools with them. If the organization doesn’t provide
the platforms that allow them to search, link, author, tag, mashup and subscribe to business
information in the ways they want to, they are likely to use third party software that does,
leave to join a competitor that does or not work for the organization at the first place. IT
aspects should therefore also be investigated in the determination of critical success factors.

The generation Y represents the children of baby boomers and are sometimes referred as "Millennials”;
they are the workers that graduated from college and entered the workforce after the year 2000.
P a g e | 12
 2.5. Review of the CSF for implementing Enterprise 2.0
solutions

2.5.1. Introduction and organizational strategies

The review of the risks (in §2.4 Risks of Enterprise 2.0 implementations) along with research
from the lead authors suggest that the following aspects should be considered when
implementing Enterprise 2.0 solutions : the implementation scope, user adoption strategies,
cultural aspects, governance aspects and IT aspects.

Cultural
aspects
User
adoption Governance
strategies

Critical
Implemen-
Success IT Aspects
tation Scope
Factors

Figure 4. Aspects to consider when implementing and managing Enterprise 2.0 solutions
Source : the author

For each aspect, the relevant best practices issued from the literature are reviewed and
discussed and the related critical success factors are determined.

2.5.2. Implementation strategies and scope

While most Web 2.0 systems are viral and spread quickly using word-of-mouth, one wonders if
the same pattern applies for Enterprise 2.0 systems.

Most authors agree that Enterprise 2.0 is not primarily a technological phenomenon and that
organizations have to do much more than simply deploy ESSPs tools. According to McAfee
(2009a), the biggest challenges are those concerning people’s choices, biases and
endowments. E2.0 is ultimately the result of a large number of individual choices about which
technologies to use for communication, collaboration and interaction. If many people choose
to use ESSPs, healthy and valuable online environments are likely to result. If however, a great
majority of people choose not to use ESSPS in their professional lives and instead continue to
communicate via traditional channels; their enterprise will not read the expected benefits

P a g e | 13
(McAfee, 2009a). The awareness of those challenges lead to the development of effective
strategies that address them.

Identify demand and determine objectives

McAfee (2009a) recommends determining the desired results and then deploying the
appropriate ESSP, based on the current needs and opportunities. Cook (2008) states that using
a demand driven approach is a factor for success for implementing E2.0 solutions . To do so, he
suggests locating existing initiatives inside the organization to find out what existing public
social software employees use – either for personal or professional purposes. Hinchcliffe
(2007, cited by Daniel, 2007) stresses the importance of starting with a project that solves a
current business problem. Furness (2008) suggests to consider areas where new applications
could be deployed, referring that many Enterprise 2.0 initiatives are born from grassroots
initiatives or employees identifying a gap that a mash-up, social network or other Enterprise
2.0 application could fill.

Those recommendations from the lead authors appear to be quite aligned and can be
summarized in a first success factor: Use a demand driven approach, identifying needs and
opportunities and start with a project that solves a current business problem – rather than a
traditional top down approach.

Implementing the right ESSPs

According to McAfee (2009a), ESSPs have deep similarities but are not identical, and being
specific about the needs allows to choose the right ones.

P a g e | 14
 Strong ties

Weak ties
Potential
ties
None

Figure 5. Relative volumes of different types of ties for a prototypical knowledge worker
Source : McAfee (2009a)

McAfee proposes a four ring bull’s-eye concept to illustrate the types of relationship or “ties”
between knowledge workers and their link with ESSPs. Strong ties are created by
organizational hierarchy (colleagues that know each other within a department) while weak
ties results from informal networks.

Granovetter’s research (1973) demonstrates in particular the value of weak ties for
information dissemination within a social network. He explains that the strength of a tie is
proportional to the time and level of intimacy shared between two people. Granovetter
suggests that whatever is to be diffused can reach a larger number of people, and traverse
greater social distance, when passed through weak ties rather than strong ones.

McAfee points out that casual relationships (weak ties) within the workplace broaden the
diversity of knowledge available to a knowledge worker (2009a). McAfee summarizes
Granovetter’s findings, stating: “..strong ties are unlikely to be bridges between networks,
while weak ties are good bridges. Bridges help solve problems, gather information, and import
unfamiliar ideas”.

Burt (1992) defines the notion of structural hole as a "separation between non redundant
contacts”, which are contacts that don't lead to the same people, and so provide the same
information benefits. When holes are not filled by people, information can't flow from one
human network to another.

McAfee suggests that this concept of Enterprise 2.0 Bull's-Eye can help leader decide where
they want to focus their organization's Enterprise 2.0 efforts: some deployments of ESSPs are

P a g e | 15
intended to support strong ties, while other are aimed at ties that are weak or non-existent.
He states that:

- Wikis are efficient tools for strongly tied colleagues (enhancing simultaneous group
editing and version control),
- Social network sites form, maintain and exploit weak ties and help spanning structural
holes.
- Interconnected blogs (or “blogosphere”) are efficient tools for converting potential ties
into actual ones. McAfee argues that the ESSP becomes valuable not because it
connects people with information, but because it connects people with other people
that possesses information and that would otherwise have remained isolated from one
another
- Extensions ESSPs permit interactions between professional strangers (people with
whom the prototypical worker will not ever form a tie).

DiMicco et al.‘s research (2008) shows how social network sites can help to build stronger
bonds between professionals and their weak ties, and reach out to employees they do not
know. Their motivation in doing this includes connecting on a personal level with coworkers,
advancing their career with the company and campaigning for their projects.

Cook’s 4C classification of ESSPs presents an approach (Cook, 2008) to identify the preferred
social software footprint for an organization. Depending on the formality of the organizational
structures and the level of interaction in its corporate culture, it will benefit most from an ESSP
that enables collaboration, cooperation, connection or communication (see §2.2.2. Overview
of Enterprise 2.0 solutions). An organization with very formal and highly collaborative culture
would most benefit from the introduction of wikis while another organization with a culture
more focused on individual effort but some group problem solving would most benefit from
blogs, tagging and social networking.

Bernal (2010) proposes an iterative process in deploying ESSPs, following a three steps
roadmap. At first, wikis, blogs, RSS feeds and forums are deployed to increase communication
in new forms and enable two-way discussions in the organization. Then new features and
functions are introduced in the environment, such as networking discovery, expert location,
communities and activities to enhance two-way collaboration. Finally, the focus is set on
innovation, with new features like tagging, rating and voting mechanisms. According to Bernal,
it would probably be several months or years for full adoption of ESSPs.

P a g e | 16
Most authors – and in particular Bernal stretch the importance of phased implementations,
focusing the Enterprise 2.0 efforts. McAfee and Cook recommend choosing the right ESSPs to
implement depending on the goal to achieve and the type of organization. Both propose
models and approaches. It is a second identified factor.

Implementation size

Furness (2008) advices to avoid selling an ‘enterprise-wide’ solution, as most Enterprise 2.0
applications work best amongst teams of employees or groups to manage a particular project.
There are exceptions, like microblogging platforms or social networks that can deliver
company- wide updates. The technology may be applied across the enterprise, but how groups
adopt it should be up to their departmental or group’s needs. Likewise, McAfee (2006)
suggests an informal rollout of the technologies rather than a more formal procedural change.

Cook (2008) recommends starting Enterprise 2.0 implementations with a small pilot in a single
office or department with both the propensity to use the tools and the likelihood to benefit
from such usage. The pilot should be used to develop a case for wider adoption and roll-out
and to create a framework for how different business units can employ the same tools.

Regarding the implementation size and type, a good recommendation would therefore be to
start small and quickly with an informal rollout of the technology. This adds to the second
critical success factor.

2.5.3. User adoption strategies

Cooks (2008) declares that alongside an effective implementation strategy, adoption matters
even more, especially for Enterprise 2.0 solutions. Whilst an enterprise system under-used by
25 per cent is simply under-performing by roughly the same percentage, social software
depends on a certain level of participation in order to create any value at all. Gotta (2007)
states that the main emphasis during implementation should be on understanding the design
criteria and adoption patterns associated with these applications.

Adoption strategies

Cook (2008) distinguishes two types of approaches when implementing Enterprise 2.0
solutions. “Bottom-up strategies” rely on the software having an immediate usefulness to key
members of staff, who convince those around them of that utility, who in turn do the same,
and so on. Adoption is achieved in an organic, viral and social manner. “Top-down strategies”,
on the other hand, rely on instructions being passed down the organizational hierarchy in a

P a g e | 17
carefully planned and managed way. Both strategies present advantages and disadvantages, as
outlined in the figure below:

Bottom up Top down

Advantages - Encourages a collaborative
culture
- Peer recommendation
more credible
- The most useful systems
actually get used
Disadvantages - Behaviors may develop
that suit the individual
rather than the company
- Adoption happens at its
own pace
- The message to staff can be
“controlled”
- Enforces the use of
strategically important
systems
- Essential for difficult to use
software with high
investment/training
requirements
- Often falls on deaf ears
- Requires constant
reinforcement from superiors

Figure 6. Advantages and disadvantages of bottom-up and top down approaches

Source : Cook (2008)

Cooks suggest that an optimum combination of both top-down and bottom-up strategies is
required. One of the key elements of a bottom-up approach is the concept that the value to
the individual must take precedence over the value to the network. Implementations can
never just be based on bottom-up adoption. Management support is also required.

Pan and Scarbrough’s (1998) analyses of implementation and adoption factors emphasize the
importance of top management involvement. In the most successful cases, the leader of the
organization acted as both visionary and champion, investing in the infrastructure and
changing the incentive systems to encourage behavioral change.

Believers, Champions and evangelists

Newman and Thomas (2009) state that Enterprise 2.0 implementations will stall if there are no
champions. Gourville (2004) suggests using believers as an important category of user.
Believers are early and spontaneous adopters, who for some reason quickly see the benefits of
the new product and switch to it. McAfee (2009a) recommends managers to turn believers in
internal champions and evangelists. The results are better if the believer is respected with
organization because of his rank, seniority, expertise or informal authority. He suggests that
P a g e | 18
the number of believers will grow, even without active evangelization, because new entrants
to the workforce are reflexive users of ESSPs, preferring platforms to channels. He points out
that this is even more valid with the entrance of the generation Y in the workforce. Most of
them are believers in ESSPs and have an endowment of collaboration technologies that
includes both channels and platforms.

Hinchcliffe (2007, cited by Daniel, 2007) recommends to find or to be an Enterprise 2.0

champion who spells out what these new tools should be used for and leads by example.

Pollard (2007) suggests empowering champions to design and create social software
experiments. These champions are the organization’s thought leaders, the current users of
social software and ‘respected sponsors’; they should self-organize, meet face to face and
design and run collaboration experiments to identify opportunities and create success stories.

Communication & training

According to research by AIIM Market Intelligence Industry Watch (2009), the lack of
understanding is the biggest impediment to implementing Enterprise 2.0 solutions in the
organization. McAfee (2009a) recommends a communication and training approach that
focuses on three steps: explain to the end users the goal of the effort, train them on the tools
and related best practices, and continually encourage them to contribute to ESSPs. He points
that the first and last steps should not be underestimated.

Motivation and Rewards

Newman and Thomas (2009) declare that knowledge workers participate in an Enterprise 2.0
environment for selfish reasons. They refer to Adam Smith’s notion of the “Invisible Hand”
where a knowledge worker “…intends only his own gain,” and he seeks recognition which can
ultimately lead to promotion and increased economic remuneration. The “selfish”
contributions made by knowledge workers make the enterprise (the “society”) better off as a
whole as the quality and quantity of information assets increases. Newman and Thomas point
that this argument is predicated on the idea that the recognition process is efficient. People
need to be rewarded for sharing and for collaborating. Incentives need to be in place to give
people a reason to share what they know and to make their challenge not hording
information, but rather acquiring new knowledge to continue to share.

Management must have strategies in place to recognize innovative ideas and promote their
authors and collaborators without feeling threatened. Without such strategies, participation
will dwindle. If participation isn’t occurring, a governance model should highlight this so that
P a g e | 19
the business may make corrections. In his theory of social procedures, Parikh (2002) considers
the recognition of the importance to people of incentives for cooperation as a key element.

In conclusion, there seems to be a consensus amongst the lead authors regarding user
adoption strategies. Their key findings and recommendations can be summarized as follow and
constitute the third identified success factor:

- Actively work on user adoption strategies, (Cooks and Gotta)

- Combine top-down and bottom-up approaches, (Cooks)
- Identify believers and turn them into internal champions and evangelists, (all lead
authors)
- Involve management directly, (Pan and Scarbrough)
- Use efficient communication strategies that explain the goal of the effort and
continually encourage users to contribute to ESSPs, (AIIM Market Intelligence Industry
Watch research and McAfee)
- Monitor progress and value contributions through an efficient recognition and reward
process that encourages behavioral change. (Newman and Thomas and Parikh)

Adoption pace

McAfee (2009a) research shows that many organizations, especially larger ones, have found
that ESSPs remain a niche technology even well after their introduction, used by only a
relatively small portion of the workforce, and lagging far behind the universal deployment of
older channel technology like email.

A global survey by McKinsey (2008) shows that only 21% of respondents expressed overall
satisfaction with Web 2.0 tools, 22% expressed clear dissatisfaction, and 7% had tried at least
one ESSP but had subsequently stopped using it.

McAfee (2009a) suggests that the adoption pace of the ESSP is correlated to the presence or
not of an incumbent technology already in place. Most of the ESSPs have incumbent
technology in place and their adoption will require both behavioral and technological change.
He refers those ESSPs as long hauls products. Email, for example, is at present the universally
deployed collaboration technology and is part of the endowment and status quo for every
worker.

Gourville's research (2006) suggests that the average email user will underweight the relative
benefits of a replacement technology like an ESSP by about a factor of 3, while Enterprise 2.0
enthusiasts will overweight these same benefits by the same factor. He refers this as the “9x
P a g e | 20
effect” developers of new collaboration technologies will have to overcome. During the
primary research, this 9x effect may affect the representative nature of the sampling and it will
therefore be considered.

McAfee states that the adoption of an ESSP that aims to replace this channel by a platform
requires then at least a partial shift away from this endowment, which will decrease its
adoption pace. Long Hauls have the potential to become popular and widespread, but their
success comes slowly. Gourville argues that the simplest strategy for dealing with consumer’s
resistance is to brace for slow adoption, to be successful companies must anticipate a long,
drawn out adoption process and manage it accordingly. (2006)

According to Cook (2008), the adoption pace of a new product will depend on its awareness by
the staff, the education put around it and on social, cultural and political aspects. Even with
the right levels of awareness and education, there can be emotional barriers, such as not being
used to the transparency and freedom that social software encourages, an organizational
culture that doesn’t reward collaboration, or purely political motives.

As this particular adoption process might affect the user adoption strategies and the overall
success of the implementation, a fourth critical success factor is deducted from McAfee and
Gourville’s research: prepare the organization for a long adoption process, especially if
incumbent technologies are already in place.

2.5.4. Cultural aspects

Cultural aspects

Based on his study of European investment bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, McAfee
(2006) suggests that a key element in the success of social software implementation is the
creation of a receptive culture in order to prepare the way for new practices.

In particular, Newman and Thomas (2009) suggest that corporate culture must be willing to
embrace knowledge generated by the “bottom ranks” and innovation from unexpected places.
Enterprise 2.0 allows workers to bypass much of the corporate hierarchies to complete tasks.
Through informal networks, workers collaborate, seek recommendations, and innovate. This
shift to open communication can be badly perceived by the generation of “command and
control”, as previously identified in the risk analysis (risk of losing control).

Cook (2008) states that most companies’ cultures will need to change or be changed as a result
of the different ways of working that social software requires. He explains that valuable

P a g e | 21
information is a rare commodity in most businesses and those who possess it tend to guard it
with their lives, to ensure no one else can take credit for their corporate intellectual property.
He defines five stages of maturity when it comes to an organization understanding and
adopting social software in an enterprise setting: Unawares, obstructers, neutrals, supporters
and champions.

A fifth critical success factor can be deducted from McAfee, Newman and Thomas and Cook’s
views on cultural aspects: create a receptive culture in the organization, to prepare the way for
new practices and to embrace knowledge generated from unexpected places.

2.5.5. Governance

Several risks around governance have been identified in §2.4 Risks of Enterprise 2.0
implementations. While most of them are considered by the lead authors as perceived risks –
rather that real ones, all agree that a minimum of governance is necessary around Enterprise
2.0 implementations. In the scope of this paper, only the setup phase of the governance
process is considered (thus applicable during the deployment and user adoption phases).

There is a school of thought that governance of Enterprise 2.0 solutions hinders innovation
(Newman and Thomas, 2009). Governance strives to bring order and sustainability to what
would otherwise be a chaotic environment of ad hoc information creation and sharing.
According to Newman and Thomas, authoritarian, centralized governance models will almost
surely suppress the emergent outcomes one hopes to achieve with Enterprise 2.0. If Enterprise
2.0 technologies are over-secured or given too much structure, knowledge workers will not
use them. On the other hand an Enterprise 2.0 solution with no security or structure will fail.

Newman and Thomas state that Enterprise 2.0 governance should manage the transition
process from traditional hierarchies to flatter ones. One of the ways this can be done is by
convincing people of the value of Enterprise 2.0 technologies, giving them incentive to change.
Enterprise 2.0 governance strategies should also encourage management to train and support
its staff on how to use blogs and wikis, for example

According to McAfee (2009a), leaders can't simply assume that healthy communities will self-
organize and act in a coherent and productive manner after Web 2.0 tools are deployed. He
stresses a need for ground rules that fall into two groups: norms and policies and guidelines.

Dawson summarizes (2009b) the two schools of governance over Enterprise 2.0 : bottom-up
and top-down: those who believe that a ‘bottom-up’ approach is most appropriate argue that
starting with governance initiatives established or supervised at the senior executive level in an
P a g e | 22
organization is most likely to result in little of value ever happening. According to this school of
thought, the most valuable initiatives will emerge without senior management guidance or
visibility. On the other hand, a key advantage of establishing a governance framework early is
that all of the concerns of senior executives and stakeholders will have been raised and
addressed. This means that initiatives, once begun, should not encounter major obstacles
further down the track.

Dawson concludes that deciding whether to engage in establishing a governance framework,

and if so appropriate processes for doing so, will depend largely on the organization’s size,
management structure, culture, and style. Larger organizations, government departments, and
listed companies in particular are likely to prefer a highly structured and documented
approach which will provide a rigorous view of organizational benefits and risks. Smaller
organizations, particularly private companies and some not-for-profit organizations may be
more comfortable with a briefer review and analysis.

Ayyagari, interviewed by Bernal (2010) states that Enterprise 2.0 governance differs from
traditional IT governance because the fabric of web 2.0 is a non-hierarchical collaboration of
equals. A traditional top-down command-and-control approach to governance does not work
well for these projects. He considers gaining mindshare as a key element in the governance
process, along with a good feedback mechanism. Flexibility is another key differentiator in the
governance of these projects. “Fail early and learn fast” are contributors to success—so the
organization should be willing to go with processes that are not fully baked and be willing to
iterate.

Pan and Scarbrough’s (1998) go further and consider that managers need to be prepared to
trust staff to use social software tools appropriately, and realize that mistakes will get made.

Newman and Thomas (2009) state that a good governance process should be balanced,
managing risk by explicitly stating that certain topics are off limits and on the other
encouraging creativity, innovation, and success by providing structure and guidelines for what
makes a good blog, for example.

In summary, the lead authors recommend establishing an appropriate governance model,

avoiding as much as possible a traditional top down “command-and-control approach” .
Dawson in particular states that this will depend on the organization’s size, management,
structure, culture and style. All agree that a balanced process must be preferred, to encourage
innovation and creativity while managing risks. Another key aspect identified in the risk
analysis is to communicate clearly policies and provide a framework which users can use as a
P a g e | 23
guideline for authoring content. These recommendations constitute the sixth critical success
factor.

2.5.6. IT aspects

A study by Butler Group (2008) suggests that it is clearly a mistake to think that E2.0 is all
about technology, but it is also a mistake to dismiss the technology altogether. Selecting and
implementing E.2.0 solutions requires careful thought, consideration and planning.

Newman and Thomas (2009) affirm that Enterprise 2.0 systems differ from traditional IT
systems, as most of them are available online in a “Software as a Service”(SaaS) model.
Business users can therefore go to a website, sign up for an account, and directly use the
software hosted on the provider’s data center, without the intervention of the IT department.
This makes adoption of technology very easy but it can be a nightmare for the IT department,
for the security people, and for the legal department. Cook (2008) underlines this behavior
particularly with younger employees.

Semple (2007) suggests that whilst corporate IT department can choose whether to let it
happen, make it happen, or pretend it’s not happening, the outcome will essentially be the
same: social software is coming to the organization whether the IT department likes it or not.

While research by Forrester (Young, 2007) shows that IT department would prefer to invest in
a suite of tools offered by a major incumbent vendor like Microsoft or IBM, Cook (2008) states
that it may not be the best news for employee who like the informality and social nature of
the tools they have already adopted. The champions and supporters of social software in
business could quickly create a counter-culture if they feel that their grassroots efforts are
being hijacked and moulded into just another IT rollout.

McAfee (2009a) recommends involving quickly the corporate IT department, to keep it aligned
with the business demand and avoid independent initiatives. He stretches the importance of
deploying the necessary collaboration infrastructure through a common platform. Given the
findings stated above, those recommendations seem appropriate and constitute the seventh
identified success factor.

2.5.7. About return on investment

Two theories exist when considering the return on investment (ROI) of Enterprise 2.0
implementations: while some authors believe in strict ROI measurements, others argue that it
is not accurately measurable and propose alternative measures.
P a g e | 24
On one hand Newman and Thomas consider that ROI can and should be measured. When
implementing Enterprise 2.0, management should identify goals - both short and long term -
which it seeks to achieve. The organization should then measure the costs and benefits of
bringing the Enterprise 2.0 platforms online.

Furness (2008) argues that organizations are looking for ROI and that it must be therefore
measured. Even if many of the Enterprise 2.0 tools present softer benefits, such as improving
employee productivity. IT managers should relate their business cases to hard figures e.g.
reduced costs associated with product development, costs saved from collaborating virtually
through wikis than by flying overseas and so on.

On the other hand Roberts (2010) states that traditional ROI technics for measuring the
success of E.20 are neither applied nor applicable directly. McAfee (cited in Roberts, 2010)
reinforces Roberts’s position and recommends measuring progress instead of ROI. He argues
that the identification of the benefits of adopting such technology is at best estimates and at
worst pure speculation. The main reason is that those solutions essentially generate
intangibles assets. His recommended approach for creating business cases is to clearly identify
the costs and time lines associated with the implementation, the benefits expected – using
case studies or examples of the results from comparable implementations and finally the
technology footprint, in particular its geographical, divisional and functional reach.

Cook (2008) also argues that business cases should not be used for Enterprise 2.0 solutions,
because of their bottom up adoption model. Rather than focusing on business value
(productivity increases, cost savings and return on investment), the author recommends to
explain the value that will be delivered to the individual user, to other users as a result of each
additional user’s participation, and then – and only then – the resulting benefits to the
business as a whole.

If no consensus seems to currently exist amongst the lead authors about ROI calculations, the
problematic stresses the difficulty of measuring benefits and success of Enterprise 2.0
implementations and possibly the need of new metrics. As an example Muller et al (2009)
propose a different approach to measure the value of Enterprise 2.0 solutions, based on
human service to other humans, rather than on ROI. The authors describe a family of metrics
called Return On Contribution (ROC) that focuses on human collaboration, namely the creation
and consumption of information and knowledge among employees. They show that ROC can
be used to track the performance of several types of social media applications, and how ROC

P a g e | 25
can help to understand the usage patterns of items within those applications, and the
performance of employees who use those applications.

2.6. Summary

Although this literature reviews was far from exhaustive, it represents an overview of the
current school of thoughts around Enterprise 2.0 implementations. It shows that a real
strategy is required for such implementations, unlike for Web 2.0 systems that spread quickly
using word-of-mouth.

The identified key success factors can be summarized as follow:

- Use a demand driven approach, identifying needs and opportunities and start with a
project that solves a current business problem – rather than a traditional top down
approach.

- Focus the Enterprise 2.0 efforts by choosing the right ESSPs to implement, depending
on the goal to achieve and the type of organization. Start small and quickly with an
informal rollout of the technology.

- Actively work on user adoption strategies, combining top-down and bottom-up

approaches. Identify believers and turn them into internal champions and evangelists.
Management involvement and support are also essential. Use efficient communication
strategies that explain the goal of the effort and continually encourage users to
contribute to ESSPs. Monitor progress and value contributions through an efficient
recognition and reward process that encourages behavioral change.

- Prepare the organization for a long adoption process, especially if incumbent

technologies are already in place.

- Create a receptive culture in the organization, to prepare the way for new practices
and to embrace knowledge generated from unexpected places.

- Establish an appropriate governance model, depending on the organization’s size,

management, structure, culture and style. Avoid a traditional top down command-
and-control approach and prefer a balanced process that encourages innovation and

P a g e | 26
 creativity while managing risks. Communicate clearly policies and provide a framework
which users can use as a guideline for authoring content.

- Involve quickly the corporate IT department, to keep it aligned with the business
demand and avoid independent initiatives. Deploy the necessary collaboration
infrastructure through a common platform.

P a g e | 27
 3. Research Design

3.1. Introduction and objectives

This chapter provides an overview of the chosen research methodology, based relevant
literature and on the analysis of the research question.

3.2. Aim and objectives of the research

The aim of this research is to build knowledge around the implementation of Enterprise 2.0
solutions in Belgium. The literature review showed that the literature about Enterprise 2.0 is
scarce in the area of implementations within Belgian organizations, as most of it comes from
American authors.

The objectives of the research are therefore to verify that the critical success factors identified
during the literature review are valid and applicable to the Belgian industry. These factors will
be tested and modified during the primary research. The overall research question can be
expressed as:

What are the critical success factors to implement Enterprise 2.0 solutions within Belgian
organizations?

The results of the research will be a list of critical success factors that are objectively based
upon the acknowledged experts, both academic and practical.

The 7 candidate critical success factors issued from the literature review are summarized in §
2.6 Summary.

3.3. Choosing the type of research: quantitative, qualitative or

mixed

Amongst the three common research methods in research design, the qualitative method
based on semi-structured interviews is preferred in this case. Qualitative research involves

collecting and analyzing data primarily in the form of words. It tends to be inductive, working
from data to theory, which makes it well suited to exploratory or theory-building research
(Henley Management College, 2005b).

P a g e | 28
Reid and Spinks (2005) underline the usefulness of interviews in case of exploratory research,
where the aim is to investigate little understood phenomena and identify important variable,
and in attempts to understand the world from the subjects’ point of view, to unfold the
meaning of people experience. In addition, research at Henley Management College (2005b)
shows that in-depth, semi structured interviews are recommended when investigating an
emerging or little understood phenomenon, like Enterprise 2.0 solutions.

In addition, semi structured interviews will allow the author to tailor one question or another
depending on the answers from previous interviews, allowing a greater exploration of the
critical success factors.

3.4. Qualitative approaches

The semi-structured interview will be conducted face to face, whenever possible, to allow a
greater exploration of the subject. This method is preferred over video, telephone or email
interviews. Telephone or email interviews may be used for follow-up or clarification if needed,
when a second face to face interview will not be possible.

The interview process will be supported by a set of initial questions, presented in Annex 2.
This mix of open ended and closed questions will ensure to capture the opinion of the
interviewees about the topics covered, allowing them to express their knowledge and personal
experience in the area. This would not be possible in a structured questionnaire.

The questions have been formulated to ensure that their answers can be used in an analytical
manner and to review trends.

During the selection process, the level of interest and enthusiasm of the candidates will be
important to capture and only those who responded positively will be chosen. To avoid the
“9x effect” described by Gourville (2006) and gather more objective results, Enterprise 2.0
“super enthusiasts” will not be retained either.

A known limitation of this qualitative approach is the study size which is limited, due to the
fact that semi-structured interviews “face to face” are extremely time intensive.

3.5. Sampling methods and criteria

As stated by Reid and Spinks (2005), the sampling must be right to establish legitimacy of the
research. Due to the specificity of the Enterprise 2.0 topics, the sampling approach retained
here is a purposive sampling (Henley Management College, 2005b) – where the question is
P a g e | 29
raised: can those people I am interviewing really provide the information I need to answer my
research question?

The target population will be consultants and business managers from organizations in
Belgium that have already implemented such solutions or that consider implementing them in
the following months.

The selected sampling strategies will be a mix of “typical examples” (participants that are
known beforehand to be typical of representative), “most dissimilar examples” (participants
that are judged to be dissimilar and allow contrast) and “snowball sampling” (where new
participants are identified and recommended by previous ones).

The age of the targeted population will be mixed. The initial goal is to conduct ten to fifteen in
depth interviews. A practical criterion is set-up: the subjects should be within a driving
distance from Brussels.

The subjects will be invited upfront by email (see a copy of the invitation in Annex 3) and will
be asked to reserve one hour of their time. This will cover the introduction word, the interview
itself and the closing. Interviews will be recorded – after having the permission of the
interviewees, using two devices (one for backup and better audio clarity). Notes will be taken
with Microsoft OneNote 2010, which synchronizes written notes and audio recording. (See a
transcript sample in Annex 4)

To test the interview process, a sample of two pilot interviews will be conducted with the
initial set of questions. After the interview, a feedback on the process, the clarity and the
pertinence of the questions will be asked, in order to refine the initial set of questions. The
sample interviewees will be well known (former colleague/manager).

3.6. Interview schedule

A set of eight main questions is established to guide the interviewee. In addition, the schema
presented in 4.1 is enriched with an additional category “others” and is presented as a
framework to support the interview process. Both are sent in advance to the interviewee by
email.

P a g e | 30
 Governance
Cultural
& Risks
aspects
management

User
adoption IT Aspects
strategies

Critical
Implemen-
Success Others
tation Scope
Factors

Figure 7. Aspects to consider when implementing and managing Enterprise 2.0 solutions
Source : the author

The goal is to let the subject speak around the main questions and the framework with
minimum interruption. To cover all relevant dimensions, a subset of lower questions is also
established.

The interview schedule is presented in Annex 2 and contains four parts. It is ordered in a way
so that no controversial topic appears at first, to build rapport and trust with the participants,
before exploring more sensitive issues such as governance and culture aspects, following
recommendations by Henley Management College (2005b).

- A word of introduction briefly explains to the interviewee the aim of the research and its
practical aspects
- The main topics and questions are divided in three parts :
o A quick presentation of what is considered as Enterprise 2.0 solution in the frame
of this research
o A set of short and closed questions relative to the demographic data of the
interviewee and one’s company (for reference only)
o A set of seven main questions to cover the “candidate” critical success factors plus
one last open question to discover new topics

If necessary, the initial set of questions will be adapted during the research process.

3.7. Methodology for data analysis

Qualitative data are rich, detailed, and full of new insights. They are also unstructured,
complex and may be contradictory (Henley Management College, 2005b).

P a g e | 31
Miles and Huberman (1994) propose a data analysis process in four interconnected steps

Data collection Data display

Conclusions
Data reduction
Drawing & verifying

Figure 8. Data Analysis process

Source : Miles and Huberman (1994)

During the interview, the technic of memoing (Glaser, 1967) is used as a tool to both refine
and keep track of ideas that develop during the process.

After each interview, the data is collected in a tool (OneNote) and the key points are
summarized, along with the general perception of the interviewer on the interview and the
perceived openness of the interviewee.

A coding exercise is then applied, to identify the key themes, concepts and patterns within the
data collected. An initial code is developed prior to the interview and will be enriched during
the process.

Once several interviews have been conducted, the set of data is reduced in a spreadsheet that
summarizes and structures the data of each interviewee, using codes. An extract of this
spreadsheet is presented in Annex 5.

Data is then displayed graphically in a mindmap to identify the links and relationships between
the codes. This is the theory building stage (Henley Management College, 2005b). An extract
of this mindmap is presented in Annex 5.

The process is iterative and repeated along with the interviews.

P a g e | 32
 3.8. Pilot interviews

Two pilot interviews were conducted before the main run. They allowed adjusting the
interview schedule and improving the overall process. The following observations were made:

- A significant amount of data is captured during the interview, and an interview template
sheet (with the predefined set of questions and empty spaces for the answers) is
necessary for the author, to be sure to cover all questions. Interview recording is
extremely useful – to complete afterwards the notes taken during the interview.
- Face to face interview is to be privileged. As a test, the second interview was realized by
telephone and was less confortable, both for the interviewee and the author.
- An additional question is added to the interview schedule, about the current
implementation status of Enterprise 2.0 solutions in Belgium. As those solutions appear to
be very recent and few implemented in Belgium, the target population of interviewees
will be able to give a fair overview of the situation.

P a g e | 33
 4. Research Results

4.1. Introduction

This chapter presents and discusses the findings of the interview survey.

4.2. Subject demographics

Twenty persons were invited to participate to the interviews. Fifteen persons have accepted
but finally only twelve interviews were conducted. One person wished to not participate after
refining the subject (he had not enough knowledge of Enterprise 2.0 solutions) while another
one – qualified as a “super enthusiast” (see paragraph 3.4) – was not retained. The two other
interviews were not conducted for practical reasons and time constraints.

The relatively low number of interviewees can affect the representative nature of the
sampling. This is discussed in paragraph 6 – Limitations of the research.

All twelve subjects work for nine different Belgian knowledge based companies. Three subjects
(#3, 5 & 6 in the table below) work for Enterprise 2.0 software editors and four (#2,3,8 & 10)
are consultants in Enterprise 2.0 solutions. Eleven subjects have already implemented such
solutions while one (#11) intends to do it in the following months.

Interviewe Company Role in Company Industry

e
1 Company 1 HR Learning & Knowledge manager IT Services

2 Company 2 Consultant in Knowledge Management & Enterprise 2.0 IT Services

3 Company 3 Consultant Collaboration & Enterprise 2.0 Editor SW

4 Company 4 Business manager Pharmaceuticals

5 Company 1 CIO Editor SW

6 Company 5 CEO & Consultant Enterprise 2.0 Editor SW

7 Company 1 Consultant Services

8 Company 6 Consultant in Knowledge Management & Enterprise 2.0 Services

9 Company 7 Business manager Transport

Industry

10 Company 8 Consultant in Knowledge Management & Enterprise 2.0 Energy/ Telco

Industry

P a g e | 34
 11 Company 9 IT manager Transport
Industry

12 Company 1 IT Executive manager IT Services

4.3. Implementation status in Belgium

The literature review previously showed that the literature about Enterprise 2.0 is scarce in the
area of implementations within Belgian organizations.

From the first interviews the author realized that only few implementations were made in
Belgium. Enterprise 2.0 solutions are present in Belgium for two to three years on average and
very few big companies have implemented it at a large scale. Most current implementations
are realized at the department level and are still considered as experiments. Many of the
implementations bring satisfaction (63%, according to subject #2 (Kinet, 2010) and they might
be extended to the rest of the company – some are not, like for example a major failure
reported for a large Belgian phone company. According to the interviewees, the companies
that have implemented Enterprise 2.0 solutions are knowledge based companies, usually at
the top of their respective industries.

Compared to its close neighbors, Belgium is lagging behind – and here are some of the
reported reasons for this delay:

- Absence of major Belgian references (described as a peer effect, no one wants to be first
to “walk the talk”)
- Lack of expertise from large IT services companies – but currently changing
- The Belgian corporate culture and the way organizations work in Belgium, in particular
their CIO agendas which are still very traditional and conservative (role based, e-mail
minded rather that platform minded, against home working, etc.), compared to UK or
France.
- Absence of real budget behind Enterprise 2.0 initiatives.

4.4. Implementation Scope

4.4.1. About the origin of the implementation

Decision level

P a g e | 35
The origin of the Belgian enterprise 2.0 implementations can come from different
management levels.

It is sometimes a decision from the top management or the CIO, mostly for international
companies with a presence in Belgium which initiate a general rollout of the technology
worldwide, to pursue a global program of collaboration.

For Belgian based firms, the decision seems to come from the top management when
Enterprise 2.0 is positioned strategically as a collaborative asset, with the reported objectives
of staying competitive, innovative and showing an image of technology early adopter –
particularly important in innovative industries like IT and pharmaceuticals. A few subjects
outlined the willingness of hiring generation Y employees as part of the decision. One subject
(#5) stretched the importance of having the CIO in the driving seat for the implementation
while staying continuously in alignment with the business – at risk of failure.

However, most of the Belgian implementations are originated from the department level,
often from an innovative business manager that presents a personal interest in Enterprise 2.0
solutions. A social software experiment is then started, as a proof of concept of the
technology. Usually, the departments in question are handling a lot of information, like the
HR, marketing, intranet or documentation center departments. Several subjects highlighted
the difficulty to position the solution afterwards as a strategic asset and the risk of never let it
evolve to an enterprise wide solution.

Finally, according to several subjects, Enterprise 2.0 aspects are more and more integrated in
global collaborative market tenders, rather than in dedicated ones.

Demand driven

The origin of the implementation is almost never demand driven by the business, except for
the social experiments cited above. It rarely follows an existing initiative taken in the company.
Even in this case, several subjects noted both the difficulty to standardize the solution
afterwards - each initiative arguing to use their own tool – and to launch a real project
bringing business value, while so much focus has already be put in one tool.

Business problem

For social experiments, there is rarely a business problem that the implementation is trying to
solve and thus rarely a budget dedicated to the project. It is no more the case after the
experimentation, when a real project is launched and a serious business case needs to be built.

P a g e | 36
When the implementation decision comes from the top management, the business problem at
the origin of the demand was mostly the inefficiency of the current collaboration and
communication processes.

Finally, a third category of implementations relates to making more social and collaborative an
existing business process.

4.4.2. About the scope of the implementation

Choice of the right ESSPs

Organizations that have a long history with Enterprise 2.0 - mostly the software editors
companies and some early adopters – have deployed the ESSPs as they have appeared in the
market, starting with blogs and wikis, then RSS and mashups, and more recently social
networks, video sharing and later on tagging. Virtual world was almost never implemented in
Belgium (only subject #1 referred to it, but the initiative has been dropped).

Organizations that are starting Enterprise 2.0 implementations today (after social experiments)
tend to proceed differently. If a platform product 2 is chosen, it is implemented at once but not
all functionalities are activated directly: the focus seems to be put on one set of functionalities
- apparently arbitrarily chosen by the management - and the other ones are deployed
regularly. One subject (#6) recommended deploying quickly social networking and micro
blogging, to create a conversation in the organization.

If point solutions3 are chosen, most subjects recommend performing an analysis to choose the
most appropriate ESSP – depending on the company needs and objectives: wikis for interactive
documentation, blogs for communication strategy, etc. In particular, one subject (#2) has
developed a decision tool that determines the “social profile” of the organization, analyzing
aspects like the structure of the companies (horizontal vs. silos), the project vs. product
approach, the knowledge & innovation management, the network and collaboration
management, the use of technology, etc. This social profile is then mapped on common
enterprise 2.0 tools of the market, to determine the ESSPs that will have the best chances of
success and to pinpoint potential pitfalls. A roadmap towards Enterprise 2.0 is then built.
2

A platform product regroups several enterprise 2.0 tools (see Annex 1) in one integrated piece of
software. (for example Microsoft Sharepoint, Lotus Connections or Knowledge Plaza)

A point solution refers to a single enterprise 2.0 tool (see Annex 1), by opposition to a platform product.
P a g e | 37
Another subject (#8) has stressed the importance of assessing and having a critical insight on
what he calls the “social energy” of the organization, to determine if synergies may be created
between silos and choose accordingly the ESSP that will bring the most added value.

Rollout size and type

The size and type of the rollout varies and depends on the origin of the implementation, the
culture and size of the organization, and finally on the product itself.

If the origin of the implementation was a top management decision, the ESSP is generally
rolled-out at once to all employees. A focus might be set afterwards per department or per
functionality, as part of the user adoption strategy. If an incumbent technology is already in
place, the ESSP is generally put aside it in an informal way at first and is then pushed to replace
it as and when.

In case of social experiment, the rollout size is obviously limited. Several subjects
recommended to start small and to use a “sandbox” to learn and play and create a
conversation in the organization.

In all other cases, the rollout is done per department, per community of practice or per
community of interest.

Some ESSPs can be deployed easily to a limited group of people (wiki, for example) while
others like social networking only make sense (see network effect) if they are deployed
everywhere immediately.

Generally, the rollout is more informal than with traditional IT tools like email or ERP. It
becomes more formal when it is included in a larger technology rollout (for example, a new
intranet where social features are one of many layers).

P a g e | 38
 4.5. User adoption strategies

Adoption strategies and change management

About half of the subjects reported major failures in terms of user adoption strategies. A
common reported mistake is that management assumes that employees know how to use the
tools and what can be done with them, as their concepts are known from web 2.0. No formal
education is foreseen – as it would be for traditional information systems – and the
implementation is purely technical. It impacts very negatively the user adoption, brings huge
gaps between generations (especially between generation Y and older generations) and
seriously compromises the network effect and thus the success of the project. Another
reported failure is the lack of explanation on the business value of the deployed ESSPs, and on
the pursued strategical objectives.

Almost all subjects recommend an active user adoption strategy and a series of steps to ensure
the durability of the deployed platform. In most of the cases, actively using and contributing to
an ESSP is not explicitly part of the working tasks of an employee and is done on a voluntary
basis. Thus it takes a lot of change management to explain:

- what the ESSP does and which problems and opportunities it can solve,
- what is its business value and how it contributes to the strategical objectives of the
organization,
- what’s in it for the employee and which personal benefits it can bring him/her,
- how it can be positioned against incumbent technologies.

A good communication plan that refers to scenarios and use cases is almost always
recommended, in particular for newer concepts like tagging or micro blogging. Only two
subjects considered that “word of mouth” was sufficient to promote Enterprise 2.0 solutions.

A big difference reported with traditional ERP or knowledge management tool is that while
those are transaction centric or document centric, ESSPs tend to be user centric. Subject #8
reported that a challenge of the change management is to transform the old adage
“Information is power” into “Information sharing is power”. According to several subjects, an
overcome of existing fears is necessary, especially for middle management – that will act as
Enterprise 2.0 champion (see below) or enemy, since Enterprise 2.0 systems tend to flatten
the organization hierarchy.

P a g e | 39
Effort required and type of training

One subject (#2) reported that 68% of the Belgian implementations have invested at least half
of their budget in change management (Kinet, 2010). All subjects agree that the effort required
depends largely on the target population to be trained. Companies with mature experience in
document and information management or companies with younger employees will require
less functional education. In case of heterogeneous populations, several subjects
recommended to determine user profiles and adopt a different strategy for each group : while
a small awareness and simple introduction video would be sufficient for a population, another
would require a more traditional and focused approach.

Formal training is almost never done, several subjected referred to e-learning, frequently
asked questions, wiki based training and demonstration by example (management using the
tool) as best training channels.

Most subjects agree that a good user adoption strategy is more important for enterprise 2.0
solutions than for traditional IT systems. On the other hand, it is less difficult than for
traditional systems, as it is a typical example of “consumerization” of IT.

Champions and rewards

Almost all subjects stretched the importance of designating or quickly identifying champions
amongst users. Champions are usually the first active users and they are naturally convinced
by the solution. The identification of champions is most of the time a cyclic process – as some
will fade out while others will emmerge.

As typically only 10 percent of the users will actively contribute, it is important to locate
amongst them those with an interesting profile and which contributions bring real value to the
organization. Those champions must be empowered in “evangelists”, to act as facilitators and
work against resistance. Several failures were reported by the subjects when this
empowerment doesn’t take place.

Champions usually have extra authorizations in the application, to moderate the comments or
access specific usage reports. This is a reported difference with other IT systems, as champions
are active animators of the communities, in terms of content. They play an important role in
the governance process (see below).

Ideally some champions should be non-technological people, as they tend to better explain the
business value brought by the system.

P a g e | 40
Most of the subjects recommend setting up a reward program, to recognize the contributions
or re-launch the dynamic of an enterprise 2.0 initiative after a couple of months. Those
rewards are almost never financial – unless they are specifically linked to work objectives.

Most rewards are informal and specific to Enterprise 2.0 solutions: thank you notes or badges
on the user profile (like foursquare.com), hall of fame with top - and worse - contributors of
the month, recognitions from peers (recommendations),”like” tags (like facebook.com), etc.
Recognition from peers and personal marketing are clearly motivators for contributing to the
system. Two subjects advised to publish analytics about the employees’ contributions – to let
them know how many colleagues have actually read their recent post or blog.

Some subjects (#3,8 and 9) recommend using an existing reward system in the organization, to
stretch the fact that the project is officially recognized. For them recognition from peers is
good but not enough, and a match must exist between content and participation brought by
the user and a recognition policy by the HR.

One subject (#1) reported the danger of not having a reward policy, which may lead to a bad
perception of the top contributors by the middle management, who might question their
productivity.

Top management support

As for many projects, top management support is recommended and the implementation
should be part of the strategical information agenda of the organization. In addition most
subjects recommended an “active” participation of the top management in the system itself –
for example by communicating via blogs instead of via emails to all (lead by example). In
particular, a subject (#9) advised to enroll a few charismatic managers on board that are
actively contributing – and by doing so to generate a conversation within the organization
(comparable to the concept of “followers” in Twitter).

4.6. Cultural aspects

All subjects agree that corporate culture plays an important role in the success of Enterprise
2.0 implementations.

P a g e | 41
Companies with successful implementations share a culture of openness and are visionary in
terms of communication, collaboration and information sharing. Nevertheless, they also have
very often a culture of strong business conduct guidelines.

Some subjects recommend an assessment prior to any implementation - at company or

department level, to determine if the organization is “ready” or compatible with Enterprise 2.0
concepts. As such implementations tend to flatten the organization, with information
generated by anyone (the “crowd”), they doesn’t fit well for companies with role based culture
(in Handy’s term, 1985) and “command and control” principles. From the subjects’ experience,
Enterprise 2.0 implementations tend to be more successful in tasks based culture
organizations (in Handy’s term, 1985). Letting the employees spend time on the ESSP to
discover information from peers creates conversations in the organization, contribute to task
completion and stimulates innovation.

Finally, one subject (8) outlines a specific aspect of culture that might partially explain the
limited success of enterprise 2.0 in Belgium. While American and English communication
culture tend to be very explicit and “Low context” based (a maximum of information is
expressed and explained); Belgium and Latin countries tend to be “High context
communication” based : to get a message, ones needs to understand what is not said and
implicit, with a subtle combination of verbal and non-verbal aspects. This element of culture
doesn’t facilitate the adoption of social software, as the non-verbal/implicit aspect of the
communication spectrum – more difficult to express in social software - is always missing.

4.7. Governance aspects

All subjects consider that traditional top down governance approaches are not directly
applicable with Enterprise 2.0 solutions, at the risk of losing its dynamic and missing the
network effect. Several subjects (#9 and 10) even stretch the fact that one must accept that
some content on the ESSP will not be hundred percent work-related.

Auto-regulation by the community of practice is the norm. Usually, some community

animators, facilitators or champions are empowered to moderate the content and to remove
inaccurate pieces of information. In case of inappropriate content, they contact the
contributors informally and remind them of the conduct guidelines. One subject cited
“accountability” rather than “punishment” as a watchword for governance. Amongst all
respondents, no one remembered an inappropriate contribution that would have required the

P a g e | 42
intervention of higher management. Risks are much mitigated, because contributions are not
anonymous and official communications channels are clearly distinguished from social ones.

Almost all companies concerned in this study had existing business conduct guidelines. They
are not specific to enterprise 2.0, although sometimes a special section was added about social
software – but always towards the external environment.

Another important role of the moderators concerns the structuration of the content - for
example in wikis where it can degrade over time and frighten potential contributors. This is
different from other IT systems, as their role is not only administrative but is also related to the
quality of the content.

4.8. Role of IT

All subjects agree that the corporate IT department should not be bypassed during Enterprise
2.0 implementations. Even if the solution is implemented “as a service” – with no installation
on site, it will need soon or later to be integrated with the existing systems and get the proper
connectivity. One subject noted the importance to not separate the transaction flows (ERP,
CRM, etc.) from the implicit flows (Social Software) – citing that the future of enterprise 2.0
may consist of a “social layer” in transactional IT systems.

Several subjects (coming from the IT departments) consider that IT should be the driver for
implementation, providing the technological environment and enabling it for the rest of the
community.

4.9. Others

During the interviews, several other success factors were reported by the subjects as critical:

Return on investment

Two subjects (#2 and #10) outlined the importance of performing a R.O.I calculation, based on
predefined KPIs. Both have developed specific methods that go further than classical
estimation of the non-tangible benefits. New criteria’s like the reduction time to answer emails
or to search for information are taken into account. A subject (#10) proposes a holistic view
with a notion of Return on Information and Balanced Score Card (Derynck, 2009).

P a g e | 43
Functional Ease of Use

Many subjects stretched the importance of having user-friendly systems. As Enterprise 2.0
relies on voluntary participation, it should be easy to use and accessible – whether from inside
or outside the company (for mobile users). A subject (#3) pointed the accessibility issue as the
biggest impediment for Enterprise 2.0 solutions in his company. Another one (#8) referred to
the high number of clicks to perform before finding the “benefit”. Finally several interviewees
recommended integrating or migrating data from legacy systems to the deployed solution, to
avoid starting with empty platforms.

Language issue

Language management is always a challenge in Belgium for knowledge content based systems.
Three national languages plus English coexist - and documents or information are not
systematically translated. To avoid this issue, most private companies included in this survey
have chosen English as their publishing language; it is part of the company culture and their
enterprise 2.0 implementation follows the norm. For the other ones and the public companies,
interviewees recommended addressing the issue early in the project. Usually moderators play
an important role in such cases, translating tags and other classification elements.

Measuring success

As these solutions are recent (especially in Belgium), most of the interviewees recommended
to stay open-minded and alert towards the evolution of Enterprise 2.0. They are looking to
share experiences and lessons learned about the social experiments that took place in
Belgium; most of them are still looking for adapted KPI’s and efficient ways to measure their
implementation success.

P a g e | 44
 5. Discussion, conclusions and
recommendations

5.1. Introduction and objectives

This chapter discusses the interpretation of the research results, in reference with the
literature review. It verifies that the critical success factors identified during the literature
review are valid and applicable to the Belgian context and answers to the research question:

What are the critical success factors to implement Enterprise 2.0 solutions within Belgian
organizations?

Finally, it draws some conclusions from the discussion and the findings - and makes
recommendations for future business practices.

5.2. Implementation scope

The first identified critical success factor in the literature review concerns the origin of the
implementation:

- Use a demand driven approach, identifying needs and opportunities and start with a
project that solves a current business problem – rather than a traditional top down
approach.

Within the Belgian context, the primary research shows that traditional top down approaches
are still of application when the decision comes from the top management and when
Enterprise 2.0 is positioned strategically in the information agenda. It is not “demand driven”
by the business and the approach aims to improve the overall collaboration and
communication within the organization. This driver is therefore aligned with the AIIM Market
Intelligence Industry Watch’study (2009) cited in the literature review. Another driver
evocated in the primary research is the reputation of the organization, particularly to attract
young talents – as suggested by Dawon (2009b).

However the majority of Belgian implementations find their origin at the department level;
most of them are currently “social experiments” initiated by innovative business managers
with a personal interest in Enterprise 2.0.

P a g e | 45
This identified critical success factor doesn’t seem to be applied in the current Belgian
context. Nevertheless, the primary research shows that it may be more relevant in the near
future for projects that will follow the initial experiments – as serious business cases will
need to be built.

The second identified critical success factor in the literature review concerns the scope of the
implementation:

- Focus the Enterprise 2.0 efforts by choosing the right ESSPs to implement, depending
on the goal to achieve and the type of organization. Start small and quickly with an
informal rollout of the technology.

The primary research shows a difference between platform products and point solutions but in
both cases a focus is put on the Enterprise 2.0 effort. Whether it is on a set of functionalities of
the platform or on the choice of the right ESSP, an incremental deployment approach is often
followed in the Belgian industry.

In case of platforms, the functionalities deployment flow seems to follow the apparition of the
ESSPs on the market or an arbitrarily choice by management. The research could not
determine how this choice is made.

In case of point solutions, several methods have been highlighted in the research results to
determine the social profile and social energy of the organization. Those are then matched
with the ESSP that will bring the most added value and that has the best chances of success.
Some ESSPs, like social networking and micro blogging, are sometimes implemented quickly to
promote the solution and initiate a global conversation in the organization. Both approaches
are aligned with recommendations from the literature, in particular Cook’s 4C theories (Cook,
2008) and Bernal’s iterative approach in three steps (Bernal, 2010).

Most Belgian Enterprise 2.0 solutions are deployed quickly with an informal rollout of the
technology. However, the primary research indicates that the size and type of the rollout
largely depends on the origin of the implementation, with bigger rollouts to all employees in
case of top down approaches or smaller ones in case of social experiments or focused projects.

This second critical success factor seems to be applicable for the Belgian industry. The
recommendation “start small” – made by Furness (2008) and Cook (2008) is not always
applicable in this context, especially when the solution has already been sold “enterprise-
wide”. It remains valid and recommended for new initiatives.

P a g e | 46
 5.3. User adoption strategies

The third identified critical success factor in the literature review refers to user adoption
strategies:

- Actively work on user adoption strategies, combining top-down and bottom-up

approaches. Identify believers and turn them into internal champions and evangelists.
Management involvement and support are also essential. Use efficient communication
strategies that explain the goal of the effort and continually encourage users to
contribute to ESSPs. Monitor progress and value contributions through an efficient
recognition and reward process that encourages behavioral change.

The primary research stretches the importance of this critical success factor that is very
applicable in the Belgian context and probably the most important one:

It shows that active work is to be done on user adoption strategies, at risk of major failures.
Conformed with Cook’s (2008) recommendations, a combination of both bottom-up and top-
down approaches is necessary. Word of mouth and viral adoption are useful but almost never
sufficient for Belgian enterprise 2.0 implementations and they must be supported by a top-
down change management program to reach the network effect described by Metcalfe (2007).
The effort required will largely depend on the target population in the organization and it often
reaches half of the implementation budget (Kinet, 2010).

In particular, the research pointed out two key aspects in the change management initiative: a
functional education and a business coaching. Functional education is a must that is often
bypassed, as management assumes the employees know how to use the tools and what can be
done with them. Business coaching must explain the value behind the solution, from both a
strategical objective perspective and the employee’s perspective, describing what’s in it for
him/her.

The primary research joins the literature review on the topic of identifying champions and
empowering them. Most interviewees recommended using “believers” (in Gourville’s terms
(2004)) which are naturally convinced by the solution. Several pointed out the importance of
empowering them, as recommended by McAfee (2009a), especially those whose expertise is
respected within the organization. The research also pointed out the cyclic process behind
champions, as some fade out while other emerges and the importance of having non
technological people on board, which usually do a better business coaching.

P a g e | 47
The primary research confirms the importance of the support of the top management – but
also its direct involvement, with notions of “active participation” and “lead by example” that
meets McAfee (2009a) and Pollard (2007) theories. This aspect seems to be specific to
enterprise 2.0 implementations, compared to other information systems

Finally, the research highlighted the relative difficulty to monitor progress and the urgent need
for KPI’s and ways to measure success of Enterprise 2.0 implementations. It also confirmed the
importance of rewarding – in alignment with Newman and Thomas (2009), especially when
resistance exists in the middle management - and to link it somehow to an existing reward
system in the organization, to formalize the Enterprise 2.0 initiative.

The fourth identified critical success factor refers to the adoption process:

- Prepare the organization for a long adoption process, especially if incumbent

technologies are already in place.

The primary research did not bring significant results regarding this factor, since Enterprise 2.0
implementations are very recent in Belgium. It showed that social experiments usually bring
rapid success or failure and that enterprise wide implementations lack of KPI’s and ways to
quantify success (see above). McAfee (2009a) suggests that social experiments are hardly
promoted to enterprise level when a strong incumbent technology is in place. While several
subjects agreed with this, others cited successful “promotions” when enterprise 2.0
technologies were integrated in global collaborative solution rollouts – like Microsoft
sharepoint, for example.

It is therefore not directly applicable in the current Belgian context as no specific action is
usually taken to prepare the organization for a long adoption process.

5.4. Cultural aspects

The fifth identified critical success factor in the literature review refers to the culture in the
organization:

- Create a receptive culture in the organization, to prepare the way for new practices
and to embrace knowledge generated from unexpected places.

The primary research is partially aligned with this critical success factor: All organizations
surveyed in the research with successful experiences already shared a culture of openness

P a g e | 48
prior to the implementation and are visionary in terms of communication. Their corporate
culture tends to be task based (in Handy’s terms, 1985).

According to most subjects and given the current maturity level of Enterprise 2.0 solutions in
Belgium (see above in §4.3 Implementation status in Belgium), organizations that don’t share
this type of culture today will most likely not implement those solutions. Disposing of a
receptive culture in the organization seems to be a mandatory factor in the current Belgian
context. Several consultants interviewed recommended an assessment prior to any
implementation to determine if the organization is “ready” or compatible with Enterprise 2.0
concepts.

Some of them pretend that those organizations may adapt their culture – joining Cook’s
theories (2008); it is a long process which might be facilitated by the entry of generation Y in
the workforce.

The research also showed that organizations with successful implementations usually share a
culture of strong business conduct guidelines that provides a good framework for Enterprise
2.0 practices. It also outlined the challenges for social software adoption with Belgian and Latin
cultures, where nonverbal/implicit aspects of the communication play an important role.

5.5. Governance aspects

The sixth identified critical success factor in the literature review is about governance:

- Establish an appropriate governance model, depending on the organization’s size,

management, structure, culture and style. Avoid a traditional top down command-
and-control approach and prefer a balanced process that encourages innovation and
creativity while managing risks. Communicate clearly policies and provide a framework
which users can use as a guideline for authoring content.

This critical success factor is applicable in the Belgian context. Primary research shows that
bottom-up approaches (in Dawson’s terms (2009b)) and auto-regulation by the community of
practice are the norm. Facilitators are empowered to moderate the content and remove
inaccurate or inappropriate pieces of information.

Traditional top-down approaches are not directly applied in Belgium implementations – but
are well present indirectly through the application of strong business conduct guidelines.
Those are generally not specific to Enterprise 2.0 but were sometimes amended with sections
on social software.
P a g e | 49
Amongst all companies surveyed in study, the risks identified in the literature review had been
mitigated and balanced against the value creation. Two arguments often cited are that
contributions are not anonymous and that social channels do not replace official channels, for
important communications.

Policies are usually clearly communicated –as part of the business conduct guidelines or
directly in the ESSP, for example in wikis to explain their purpose and expected content.
Moderators must help structuring this content; their role is closer to the role of knowledge
manager than platform administrator.

As suggested by McAfee (2009a), the definitive structure of the ESSP is emergent.

5.6. Role of IT

The last identified critical success factor in the literature relates to the role of the IT corporate
department:

- Involve quickly the corporate IT department, to keep it aligned with the business
demand and avoid independent initiatives. Deploy the necessary collaboration
infrastructure through a common platform.

This critical success factor is much valid in Belgium and no implementation surveyed in the
research has bypassed the IT corporate department – whether for the installation of the
platform, its connectivity or its integrations with the other systems. While some subjects
argued that IT must be the driver for the implementation and not the business, others argue
the opposite – but all agree that IT and business must stay aligned and communicate all along,
at risk of failure.

The primary research shows that the use of a common platform is recommended for large
organizations. In particular two subjects cited companies where several department level
experiments had been conducted with different products. These organizations were facing
serious challenges when trying to standardize the offer and let users migrate to the official
tool; as highlighted in the literature review by Cook’s theories (2008).

5.7. Others

About return on investment

The primary research illustrated the complexity of the case regarding Enterprise 2.0 ROI
calculations. Two subjects out of twelve considered it as a critical factor that must be
P a g e | 50
measured and both proposed techniques for quantifying somehow the (mostly) intangible
benefits associated with such implementations. While it is not retained in this study as a
critical success factor for Belgian implementations, it surely requires further analysis and
research.

About the functional ease of use

The primary research showed that due to the specific nature of Enterprise 2.0 solutions –
which mostly relies on voluntary participation – they must be easy to use and easily accessible,
whether from inside or outside the company. An active work on connectivity, user interfaces,
integrations with other systems and migrations from legacy systems is highly recommended. It
can be considered as a critical success factor in the Belgian context.

5.8. Summary

The primary research is aligned with the literature review on the idea that Enterprise 2.0 is not
primarily a technological phenomenon and that organizations have to do much more than
simply deploy ESSPs tools to succeed. While most Web 2.0 systems are viral and spread quickly
using word-of-mouth, Enterprise 2.0 ESSPs usually don’t. Organization can’t afford to miss the
“network effect” and implementations strategies are necessary and highly recommended. The
Enterprise 2.0 implementation framework proposed by Dawson (2009b) is an example.

The research shows that Enterprise 2.0 implementations are thus not totally different from
traditional IT systems implementations but they present some specificity that need to be
addressed (in bold in the critical success factors cited below).

In particular for Belgian organizations, it showed that amongst the seven critical success
factors identified in the literature review, only five are applicable in the current context, with
slight modifications. One additional factor has been identified and another one may become
valid over time.

Those critical success factors for implementing Enterprise 2.0 solutions with Belgian
organizations are objectively based upon the acknowledge experts, both academic and
practical. They can be summarized as follow: (The first being the most important, the other
ones are of equal importance)

- Actively work on user adoption strategies, combining top-down and bottom-up

approaches. Identify believers and empower them into internal champions and
evangelists. Management support and active participation are essential. Use efficient
P a g e | 51
 communication strategies that explain the goal of the effort and continually
encourage users to contribute to ESSPs. Monitor progress and value contributions
through an efficient recognition and reward process that encourages behavioral
change.

- Focus the Enterprise 2.0 efforts by choosing the right ESSPs to implement, depending
on the goal to achieve and the type of organization.

- Have a receptive corporate culture in the organization, ready for new practices and to
embrace knowledge generated from unexpected places.

- Establish an appropriate governance model, depending on the organization’s size,

management, structure, culture and style. Avoid a traditional top down command-
and-control approach and prefer a balanced process that encourages innovation and
creativity while managing risks. Communicate clearly policies through business
conduct guidelines and provide a framework which users can use as a guideline for
authoring content.

- Involve quickly the corporate IT department, to keep it aligned with the business
demand and avoid independent initiatives. Deploy the necessary collaboration
infrastructure through a common platform.

- Actively work on the functional aspects of the tools, making sure they are easy to use
and always accessible to the collaborators.

For future projects that will follow the initial experiments in Belgium and that will require
business cases, the following factor may also be applicable:

- Use a demand driven approach, identifying needs and opportunities and start with a
project that solves a current business problem – rather than a traditional top down
approach.

P a g e | 52
 6. Limitations of the research and future
research

The results of the research have contributed to the understanding of what are the critical
success factors to implement Enterprise 2.0 solutions within Belgian organizations. However
the research has some limitations, presented here after.

A first known limitation is the relative small amount of interviewees (twelve) and organizations
represented (nine), which can affect the representative nature of the sampling. Practical
considerations like time constraints and the choice of semi-structured interviews have reduced
the original target sample size. This may be balanced by the presence of five consultants in the
panel, as they usually referred to multiple experiences. Thus it is considered that the sample
of interviewees is representative and accurate to the true population.

Even if a lot of qualitative data has been collected, further research with more in depth
interviews or quantitative methods could deepen the subject. In particular, a few
particularities outlined in the results seem to depend on other parameters, like the industry
type (IT services, pharmaceuticals, etc.), the size of the company (large or smb) and its nature
(public vs. private). Further research may test the validity and importance of the identified
critical success factors against those.

A second known limitation is linked to the current implementation status in Belgium (end
2010): Enterprise 2.0 implementations are currently limited; most are at the social experiment
level and there is a lack of major references. Any conclusion drawn in such context might not
be valid anymore after a couple of years, once lessons learned have been deducted from the
early adopters and the market has become more mature. The same limitation applies when
one considers the rapid evolution of the technology – as some ESSPs constantly emerge while
others fade (for example virtual worlds). In consequence, additional critical success factors
may appear over time – while other ones might become less critical.

Additional limitations linked to the qualitative approaches

The use of qualitative research may imply other limitations regarding its reliability, validity and
generalization:

To ensure a maximal reliability, the research methodology and analysis are described with the
highest transparency, while coding techniques permit to maintain an optimal weight and score
P a g e | 53
between the arguments and opinions of the interviewees. Whenever possible, a reference to
the subject number is made in the research results.

Validity of the data is ensured with a transcript and double recording of each interview, along
with continuous clarifications during the interview itself, to make sure the author understands
correctly the subject’s opinion.

Finally, generalization is limited in this research to the context of Belgian organizations in 2010
and early 2011, within the current state of technology.

Future research

The primary research highlighted the need for KPI’s and ways for measuring success of
Enterprise 2.0 implementations. Some methods have been outlined in the literature review
and others have been discovered during the field study (like the return on Information and
Balanced Score Card (Derynck, 2009). Further research on this could also contribute to the
problematic of ROI calculations and open perspectives around the evaluation of intangible
assets.

Another area to explore is the relevance of the benefits brought by Enterprise 2.0 against
criteria like the geographic distribution of the employees or their age distribution - as
suggested in the literature review by Dawson (2009b) in §2.3.2 Relevance to a specific
organization. Elements of response have been pinpointed in this research but they require
further investigation – like for example the implications of generation Y arriving in the
workplace or the use of enterprise 2.0 solutions to drive collaboration in a home-working
context.

As stated above, the organizations surveyed in the research share all a corporate culture of
openness and collaboration. It seems to be currently a mandatory factor for successful
implementations in Belgium. Future research could investigate how an organization that
doesn’t share that type of culture may need to change or be changed as a result of different
ways of working that social software requires – as suggested by Cook (2008).

Finally, the literature review suggested that Enterprise 2.0 solutions are more and more used
to communicate and collaborate outside the organization - with partners and customers for
example. Those interactions between the organization and the external world constitute large
areas for future research.

P a g e | 54
P a g e | 55
7. Reference list

- AIIM Market Intelligence Industry Watch (2009) ‘Collaboration and Enterprise 2.0
Work-meets-play or the future of business?’ Silver Spring, USA: AIIM.org

- Baecker, RM, Grudin, J, Buxton, W and Greenberg, S (1995). ‘Readings in human-

computer interaction: toward the year 2000’. Boston, USA: Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers

- Bernal, J (2010) ‘Web 2.0 and Social Networking for the Enterprise – Guidelines and
Examples for Implementation and Management within your organization’ Upper
Saddle River, USA: IBM Press

- Boynton, AC and Zmud, RW (1986) ‘An Assessment of Critical Success Factors’, Sloan
Management Review, Summer 1984; 25, 4; ABI/INFORM Global, pg. 17

- Buck, R (2008) ‘Revolutionizing knowledge work’ Leader to Leader; Summer2008, Vol.

2008 Issue 49, p55-56, 2p

- Bullen, C and Rockart, JF (1981) ‘A Primer on Critical Success Factors’. 1981. Center for
Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology

- Burt, R (1992). ‘Structural Holes: the Social Structure of Competition’. Cambridge, USA :
Harvard University Press, 17-18

- Butler Group (2008) ‘Enterprise Web 2.0 – Building the next generation workplace’
Hull, UK: Butler Group, a Datamonitor Company

- Carr, NG (2003) ‘IT doesn’t matter’. Harvard Business Review, Vol 81, n°5 , pp. 41-49

- Campbell, R (2008) ‘Social Software in the Enterprise - A Review of the Literature’.

Aldershot, England : Gower

P a g e | 56
- Chudnov, D (2007). ‘Social Software: You Are an Access Point’. Computers in Libraries
27(8), pp. 41–4.

- Cook, N (2008) ‘Enterprise 2.0 - How Social Software Will change the Future of Work’.
Aldershot, England : Gower

- Cramm, Susan (2009) ‘The truths about IT Costs’ Harvard Business Review; Mar2009,
Vol. 87 Issue 3, p28-28, 2/3p

- Daniel, D (2007). ‘How CIOs Can Introduce Web 2.0 Technologies into the Enterprise’
[online]. Available at http://www.cio.com/article/120850 [Date of access:07,30,2010]

- Dawson, R (2009a) ‘Enterprise 2.0: Competitive differentiation occurs at the

intersection of technology and culture’ [online]. Available at
http://www.rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2009/02/enterprise_20_c.html
[Date of access:07,30,2010]

- Dawson, R (2009b) ‘Implementing Enterprise 2.0: A Practical Guide To Creating

Business Value Inside Organizations With Web Technologies’. NewYork, USA:
CreateSpace

- De Lone, WHM and Ephraim R (2003) ‘The DeLone and McLean Model of Information
Systems Success : A Ten-Year Update’ Journal of Management Information Systems,
vol 19, n°4, Spring, p9

- Derynck, J (2009) ‘Balanced Score Card and Strategy Map for Enterprise 2.0 - reducing
information asymmetry in 21st century organizations’ [online]. Available at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22067824/Enterprise-2-0-reducing-information-
asymmetry-in-21st-century-organizations [Date of access:12,30,2010]

- DiMicco J; Millen, D.R., Geyer, W; Dugan, C; Brownholtz, B and Muller, M (2008)

‘Motivations for social networking at work’. Computer Supported Cooperative Work,
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work.
San Diego, USA

P a g e | 57
- Forster, NS and Rockart, JF (1989) ‘Critical Success Factors, an annotated bibliography’.
Center for Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

- Furness, V (2008) ‘Web 2.0 and The Enterprise: Its impact on business and strategies to
maximize new opportunities” Business Insights Reports. Business Insights Ltd.

- Glaser BG, Strauss A (1967). ‘Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative
Research’. Sociology Press, Chicago USA

- Gotta, M (2007). ‘The Social Approach to Collaboration’. Computer Weekly 27 March

2007, p. 26.

- Gourville, JT (2004). ‘Why Consumers Don’t Buy : The Psychology of New Product
Adoption.’ Harvard Business School Note#504-056. Boston, USA : Harvard Business
School Publishing

- Gourville, JT (2006). ‘Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the Psychology of
New Product Adoption.’ Harvard Business Review, June 2006, 98-106

- Granovetter, MS (1973) “The strength of Weak Ties”, American Journal of Sociology,

Vol 78, Issue 6, May 1360-1380

- Handy, C.B. (1985) Understanding Organizations, 3rd Edn, Harmondsworth, Penguin

Books

- Henley Management College (2005) ‘Managing Information MBA Material’

- Henley Management College (2005b) ‘Paper Builder’

- Hinchcliffe, D (2007) ‘The state of Enterprise 2.0’ [online]. Available at

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hinchcliffe/the-state-of-enterprise-20/143 [Date of
access:07,30,2010]

P a g e | 58
- Hinchcliffe, D (2010) ‘Web 2.0 and Enterprise E2.0 – in Plain English’ [online]. Available
at http://aiimcommunities.org/e20/blog/web-20-and-enterprise-e20-%E2%80%93-
plain-english [Date of access:07,30,2010]

- International Journal of Micrographics & Optical Technology (2009) ‘AIIM Tracks

Business Benefits of Enterprise 2.0. ‘ International Journal of Micrographics & Optical
Technology; 2009, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p8-8, 2/3p

- Kamath, JP (2008) ‘Social software can offer firms a competitive edge’ Computer
Weekly; 5/20/2008, p4-4, 1/6p

- Keldsen, D (2008) ‘Enterprise 2.0 -- What is it? Does it matter?’ AIIM E-DOC;
Jan/Feb2008, Vol. 22 Issue 1, p8-8, 1p

- Kinet, L (2010) ‘Enterprise 2.0 in Belgium : what’s after the hype’ [online]. Available at
http://www.slideshare.net/EARLYSTAGE/enterprise-20-in-belgium-a-survey-from-k-
company-june-2010 [Date of access:12,30,2010]

- Lennon, J (2009) ‘Implementing Enterprise 2.0 - Balancing social networking and

community with collaborative tools and services’. [online]. Available at
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-enterprise20/ [Date of
access:07,30,2010]

- McAfee, A (2006) ‘Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration’. MIT Sloan
Management Review, Spring 2006, Vol. 47, No.3

- McAfee, A (2009a) ‘Enterprise 2.0 – New collaborative tools for your organization’s
toughest challenges’. Boston, USA: Harvard Business Press

- McAfee, A (2009b) ‘Enterprise Evolution’, CIO; 10/15/2009, Vol. 23 Issue 2, p20-20,

1/2p

- McAfee, A (2009c) ‘How a Connected Workforce Innovates’. Harvard Business Review;

Dec2009, Vol. 87 Issue 12, p80-80, 1p

P a g e | 59
- McKinsey (2008) ‘Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise : McKinsey Global Survey Results’
USA: McKinsey Quarterly

- Metcalfe, M (2007) ‘It’s all in your head’ [online]. Available at

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0507/052.html [Date of access:10,10,2010]

- Miles, M B and Huberman, M A (1994). ‘Qualitative Data Analysis’. Second Edition,

Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA USA

- Morris, M (2005). ‘How Do Users Feel About Technology’. Forrester Research, Inc.

- Muller, M.J., Freyne, J., Dugan, C., Millen, D.R., and Thom-Santelli, J. (2009) ‘Return On
Contribution (ROC): A metric for enterprise social software’ Cambridge, USA : IBM
Research

- Newman, A.C., Thomas, J.G. (2009) ‘Enterprise 2.0 Implementation’. New York, YSA:
Mc Graw Hill

- O’Reilly, T (2005) ‘What is Web 2.’” O’Reilly Network [online]. Available at

http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html [Date of access:10,03,2010]

- Pan, S and Scarbrough, H (1998). ‘A Socio-technical View of Knowledge Sharing at

Buckman Laboratories’. Journal of Knowledge Management 2(1), pp. 55–66.

- Parikh, R (2002). ‘Social Software’. Synthese 132(3), pp. 187–211.

- Peters, I (2009) ‘Folksonomies : Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0’Berlin,Germany

:Gruyter

- Pollard, D (2007) ‘A Methodology for Web 2.0 Collaboration Experiments (in Reluctant
Organizations)’ [online]. Available at
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/categories/businessInnovation/2007/04/25.html
[Date of access:10,03,2010]

- Reid and Spinks (2005), ‘Analyzing Qualitative Data’, Henley Management College,

P a g e | 60
 Henley upon Thames, UK

- Richards, D (2009) ‘A social software/Web 2.0 approach to collaborative knowledge

engineering’ Information Sciences; Jul2009, Vol. 179 Issue 15, p2515-2523, 9p

- Roberts, RP (2010) ‘An interview with MIT's Andrew McAfee.’ McKinsey Quarterly;
2010, Issue 1, p24-25, 2p

- Rockart, JF (1979) ‘Chief Executives Define Their Own Data Needs’, Harvard Business
Review, March-April 1979, pp. 81-92

- Schneider, H (2005) ‘Rapid ICT Change and Workplace Knownledge Obsolescence:

Cause and Proposed Solutions’ Cambridge, USA: Berkman Center for Internet & Society
at Harvard Law School

- Semple, E (2007) ‘The 100% Guaranteed Easiest Way to Do Enterprise 2.0?’ [online].
Available at http://theobvious.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/the_100_guarant.html
[Date of access:10,03,2010]

- Surowiecki, J (2004) ‘The Wisdom of the Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the
Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations’
New York, USA:Doubleday/ Anchor Books

- The Belgian National Railways (2009) ‘Accord Cadre visant à l’achat de licences de
produits Groupware et de service liés à leur implementation’. Brussels, 2009 : Belgian
National Railways

- Wilson, J (2009) ‘Social networking: the business case’, Engineering & Technology
(17509637); 6/6/2009, Vol. 4 Issue 10, p54-56, 3p

- Young, G O (2007). ‘Efficiency Gains and Competitive Pressures Drive Enterprise

Web2.0 Adoption’. Forrester Research, Inc.

P a g e | 61
 8. Appendices
Annex 1: List of Enterprise 2.0 tools and their enterprise use.
Here is a brief description of the tools and their enterprise use (Dawson, 2009b):
Technology Brief description
Blog Simple content publishing
system that is easily
updated, shows the most
recent entry first, and can
be subscribed to using
RSS.
Wiki Document that can be
edited by multiple users,
with full audit trail of
changes.
Social network Online community in
which people create
personal profiles and
share information
with their friends and
contacts.
Podcast Audio files that are made
available for streaming
or download. They are
usually part of a regular
series that listeners can
subscribe to.
Video sharing Making videos available
for download, either to
anyone on the Internet
or a defined audience.
Videos are usually short
Enterprise use
Format is well suited to
organizational tasks such as
internal communication and
project management. Can
also be used as an informal
external communication
channel to customers and
stakeholders.
Wikis are used extensively
in organizations for a wide
range of applications including
collaborative document
creation and project
management.
Social networks inside
organizations can also be
created from staff profiles,
which give visibility across
the firm to people and their
expertise, and facilitate social
interaction and trust-building
among staff.
Podcasts can provide
learning content and internal
communications in a format
that can be listened to by staff
at their convenience e.g. when
driving or at the gym.
Videos are being frequently
used in organizations for
internal communication
to employees by senior
executives. Other applications
P a g e | 62
 and expectations of
production quality are
limited.
RSS Highly popular syndication
format that allows users
to subscribe to any
updates of content or
project activities.
Tagging Adding descriptions to
documents to enable
easier categorization
and retrieval by self and
others.
Social Notation of documents
Bookmarking as favorites in a public or
semi-public space.
Mashups Integration of disparate
data sources or
applications into a single
tool.
Virtual worlds Online simulated
environments in which
people can move around
and interact through
‘avatars’ that they control.
Micro blogging Short (usually maximum
of 140 character)
updates that people can
subscribe and respond
to, building broad-based
conversations.
include content updates,
learning programs, and sharing
of social activities.
Fundamental enabler of shift of
organizational information flows
outside email. Can be used to
provide updates on corporate
information or team activities.
Also useful for assisting clients
to access thought leadership
content.
Tagging inside organizations can
facilitate enhanced search and
better information sharing within
groups.
If broadly adopted, social
bookmarking helps staff to find
relevant information and reduce
duplication of research.
Mashups are being used
extensively in some
organizations and hold
significant promise for enabling
end-users to access and
manipulate information relevant
to their work.
Virtual worlds are beginning
to be commonly used in
training and education. They are
likely to be used increasingly
as an alternative to
videoconferencing.
Several vendors are now
providing micro-blogging
systems for the enterprise.
Currently a small number of
organizations are experimenting
with these tools
P a g e | 63
P a g e | 64
Annex 2: Interview schedule

Demographic details of the interviewee

The following information is gathered regarding the interviewee – for reference only:

Contact information
Name For reference only – will be anonymized

Date & place of interview

Email

Phone

Company For reference only – will be anonymized

Company size

Industry type

Current position in organization

Word of introduction

Thank you to spend some time with me for this interview about Enterprise 2.0
implementations. This interview is part of a research study for my MBA. The goal is to
determine the critical success factors for the implementation of Enterprise 2.0 solutions within
Belgian organizations. As you may know, this topic is quite new in Belgium. This motivates me
personally and makes this research even more interesting and valuable.

This interview will remain confidential, your name and the name of your company will not
appear in the assignment. This interview will be recorded – if you don’t mind – for personal
usage only. It is scheduled for one hour.

I have prepared a set of supporting questions to guide us during the interview process, but its
structure is not rigid. Please take your time to express your opinion about the topics covered,
expressing your knowledge and personal experience in the area. I’ll try to interrupt you as less
as possible. I’ll begin with a short word about what is considered as Enterprise 2.0 solutions in
the frame of this research, so that we are aligned on the subject.

At the end, I’ll ask you if you know of individuals and peers who could be interviewed, passing
along the “snowball”.

P a g e | 65
Main topics & Questions

Supporting schema to present Enterprise 2.0 solutions in the frame of this research:

Social Microblogging Social

Blogs Wikis Tagging
networks platforms Bookmarking

RSS tools Mashups Podcasts Video sharing Virtual Worlds

Supporting questions during the interview:

1. Which of these Enterprise 2.0 tools has your company (recently) implemented?

2. Please explain how it all started. What was the origin of the implementation?
a. Did your organization use a demand driven approach? Were there needs that
had been identified?
b. Did you locate existing initiatives?
c. Did you start with a project solving a current business problem?

3. Please explain the scope of the implementation? Which tool(s) did you start with? For
which target group?
a. Did you prioritize the implementation? Focusing the effort on a specific type of
tool at the beginning?
b. Explain how the choice for the type of tool was made and why.
c. What was the size of the initial implementation? Was there a massive rollout
implementation?
d. Was there a formal rollout? (meaning non procedural)

4. Please describe the user adoption strategy?

a. How did your company encourage users to use the tool?
b. Were there any specific roles within the organization like key users,
champions, evangelists?
c. Was there any communication plan?
d. Is there a recognition & reward program for users who contribute?
e. Was it quickly used? Did your company expect a short adoption process?
f. Is there any template or guidance on how to use those tools?
g. Did the user adoption strategy differ from other IT tools ?

P a g e | 66
5. How would you describe your company culture regarding this type of new practice –
where information can be generated by anyone?

6. Explain the governance process regarding those tools

a. Is there any? What does it do? (Control content, impose standards, etc. – see
risk management)
b. If yes, does it come from management (top down) or from within the
community of practitioners (bottom up)?
c. If no, why do you think there is no inappropriate content on the system?
d. Are there any policies, guidelines communicated? How?
e. How did the user governance process differ from other IT tools?

7. Explain the role of the IT department in such implementation.

a. Was it involved or did the business start the initiative on its own?
b. Do you use SaaS for some/all of these tools? (SaaS = Are the systems installed
in your company or hosted on internet?)

8. Do you see any other points that you consider critical for a successful implementation
of those particular tools?

P a g e | 67
Annex 3: Invitation email

The following email is sent as an invitation to the interviewees:

“Dear Mr X,
My name is Arnaud Wattiez and I am a product manager for collaborative solutions at the Belgian Railways. I’m
currently undertaking some research about Enterprise 2.0 implementations in Belgium - as part of my MBA thesis.
I got you coordinates from Mr Y, from the company Z who recommended you. I’m looking to interview consultants
and business managers from organizations that have already implemented such solutions or that consider
implementing them in the following months. As you probably know, this topic is quite new in Belgium, although it
generates a lot of buzz in the press and the IT community. Very little research has been done on Enterprise 2.0 in
our country, which motivates me personally and makes it even more interesting and valuable.
I would be very glad to interview you, as I think your profile may bring rich information about the Enterprise 2.0
practice in Belgium. The interview process would not take more than one hour of your time and would be face to
face. Of course I’m ready to meet you at your best convenience (place and time – even out of business hours). This
interview would remain confidential, your name and the name of your company will not appear in the assignment.
In attachment you can find a sample of questions and areas to cover that we could use as a guideline during our
interview – the idea is to have an open discussion about enterprise 2.0 implementations.
If you agree to participate to this research, could you drop me a note by email to fix an appointment?
Thank you very much in advance
Looking forward to hearing from you
Arnaud Wattiez”

P a g e | 68
Annex 4: Interview transcript sample

Here is an example of transcript from a semi-structured interview conducted as part of the

primary research. The name and company of the subject (#5,company #1) were removed.

Interview # 5 Date : 22/11/2010

Company YY
Author: Based on the schema provided in the interview schedule (see Figure 7), which of these
Enterprise 2.0 tools has your company (recently) implemented?

Subject: All of them, I think. It is not a surprise because we are a technology company, providing
those solutions to our clients. YY is a culturally much opened company and it was always
like that. It started with the access to Internet from the company. My current position
(CIO) has allowed me to realize that in Belgium, a lot of CIOs are still very conservative in
their thinking and they usually block the access to internet – and “a fortiori” to Facebook
and other web 2.0 sites. This seems to be typical in Belgium and in Europe while it is not
conceivable in the USA. It is linked to the corporate culture and Belgium is lagging behind
in this area.

From my experiences and discussions with the CIOs in Belgium, most companies start with
very conservative ones (ESSPs) like wikis and blogs. In YY, we use them for more than 10
years (wikis).

Author: Please explain how it all started. What was the origin of the implementation?

Subject: I don’t think it was a business problem that we were trying to solve. Culturally, YY wanted
to be ahead of technology – as it is often. We want to use technology the best way to
serve ourselves and then to serve our clients. It is part of our company values.

Author: Did you start with all ESSPs at the same time?

Subject: We started over 10 years ago with wikis. First as very static tools, to replace and facilitate
website authoring and with one author.

Author: It was not really collaboration minded then?

Subject: No but it has evolved quickly. It is also interesting to realize that even today, 10 years after,
it is still hard for some people to use wikis. We still have to encourage them! Mashups and
blogs arrived afterwards.

Tagging is quite new (2 to 3 years) and I remember myself, even being the CIO, I could not
directly understand how to use it. Conceptually it is very difficult to get it - and to bring
people to the point where they understand the value of tagging and how it can help
contributing to the collaborative asset. Understand the value of things (ESSPs) is very
important. Today tagging is everywhere: in our bookmarks, on our profiles... but it took us
a lot of time and I’m sure some people are still not using it today. In the Belgian industry, I
think that tagging is not very present. It is very present on Facebook, though!

P a g e | 69
 Social networking is for us the way ahead. We are focusing on this (ESSP) for the moment.
We think it is the way forward to work in teams around projects.

Author: Please explain the scope of the implementation

Subject: YY is an international company and we have one CIO globally. But this doesn’t mean that
everything happens at the same time everywhere. We have our own sandbox – called
“Technology Adoption Program” or “TAP”. This test environment is available to all,
whoever you are in the company: CIO or assistant, project leader or technical engineer – in
an informal way. Some of these “experiments” from TAP can be promoted to a wider
usage within the company and then be turned later into commercial products. It can start
with a small team of YY and then become part of a globally sold platform. We believe in
sandboxing and creating experiments. I consider this is a very good and innovative
approach.

Author: Please describe the user adoption strategy

Subject: When rollout is done out of TAP, it is generally pushed globally but not at the same time.
Depending on the regions, some delay may occur. We usually promote them, with real
adoption plans via the national CIO’s (that include communication, videos, posters,
education, etc.). The rollout is not so formal, though

A lot of work needs to be done on organizational change management. We need an active

adoption approach for all projects that we do, especially for enterprise 2.0 ones. Last year,
we started a program called “Better change for YY”, to try to standardize those adoptions
strategies (and try to re-apply techniques that work well from a region to another). The
goal is to explain the “what”, the “who” is impacted, the “value” beyond the tools but also
to organize stakeholder management, user testing, training (when necessary) and have a
better communication (by using the same taxonomy, for example).

What is missing for the moment are adoption metrics. We deploy enterprise 2.0 product
but don’t really know how far they are used. There is a huge difference between
deployment and adoption. Change metrics are critical elements to define at the beginning
of a project, in particular the metric you want to achieve. That’s what is going to
determine the success of the project and it is what you want to know at the end. For
enterprise 2.0, we suspect that another type of metrics is necessary.

Author: Is there a recognition & reward program for users who contribute?

Subject: Not specifically. We have an “YY-Thanks” program inside YY. You can send a “Thank you”
to anyone in the company and it becomes visible on their profile. It has no financial value
but it is fun and stimulates people. It’s important for one’s personal marketing and justifies
somehow one’s profile data.

Author: Was it quickly used? Did your company expect a short adoption process?

P a g e | 70
Subject: There was a high expectation from top management. Adoption in US was very good while
it was slower in Europe and in Belgium. For example, our social networking infrastructure
ran out of capacity after a couple of days because it couldn’t cope with the charge.

Success was also linked to the profile of the persons. Age is not the main parameter here,
more the employee generation. Older people seems to be less comfortable with enterprise
2.0 technologies while younger jump into it directly. One challenge today is that three
generations coexist in the workforce – with an older one that was there before the cell
phone era and a younger one which expects to do anything at any time and from
anywhere. We want to overcome this barrier and enterprise 2.0 tools and user adoption
should allow us to do it. To do so, one critical success factor is that they (the ESSPs) must
be user-friendly and easy to use. We know in advance that a certain percentage of the
employee population will never use it – for example we have today some elders that still
print all their emails.

A reason why enterprise 2.0 is slow to start in Belgium may come from the CIO
themselves. Most of them are quite old (from the older generation). When I meet them,
most are still discussing old topics, like email. Those are the leaders that are supposed to
drive enterprise 2.0 adoption and it is not yet on their agendas.

Author: Were there any specific roles within the organization like key users, champions,
evangelists?

Subject: Yes, we use champions and what we call “subject matter experts” or SME. They act as the
local advocates of the tool.

Author: Is there any template or guidance on how to use those tools?

Subject: Yes, there is a lot of training and quick start guides available. Even too many. We’ve seen
that when there is too much to read, people just don’t do it. We should prefer online help
techniques - “on the spot” – that must be easy to use. We’ve tried new initiatives like
introduction videos (youtube style) that are very promising.

We (IT staff) realize that we are not always good in explaining simple things to basic users.
We are too technological. The education on business value is sometimes missing – while it
is the most important. It should answer the question “What’s in it for me”

Author: How would you describe your company culture regarding this type of new practice –
where information can be generated by anyone?

Subject: It is not a problem and YY’s culture is very open-minded. In Europe and in Belgium in
particular, we have to be cautious around data privacy. There are some regulations that
must be taken into account.

Another important fact is that YY’s culture is one of strong business conduct guidelines.
These have been adapted in the scope of collaborative/social computing. Most of these
rules concerns communication with the external world, though. For example, if you speak
in name of YY, you have to follow certain rules. Even outside of the company, you are still

P a g e | 71
 an YY-er. In the past, only the communication department used to communicate with the
outside world. Enterprise 2.0 and web 2.0 change this and we have to be careful.

Author: Do you know of a bad experience in mind about this?

Subject: Well, not really. I recall one when a video from a cell phone had been put on YouTube –
but it had been quickly removed. Internally, we never had a real issue about this.

I would understand that it would be more risky for a company whose culture is different
from ours, with no business conduct guidelines for example.

Author: Let’s talk about the governance around Enterprise 2.0 solutions. How does it work?

Subject: We have nothing special about it. There is an auto regulation by the group. Errors are
captured quickly, reported and corrected. There is no specific monitoring internally

Author: Does it come from management (top down) or from within the community of practitioners
(bottom up)?

Subject: No, it is always bottom-up.

Author: Explain the role of the IT department in such implementation.

Subject: We (IT) create the technological environment that supports the platform. TAP is driven
through the CIO organization. CIOs should have the driving seat for enterprise 2.0
implementations.

But business should be involved and aligned, too. We (YY) invented the notion of “CIO 2.0”
two years ago, to underline the changing role of the CIO.

Author: Do you see any other points that you consider critical for a successful implementation of
those particular tools?

Subject: Start small. A company that begins its enterprise 2.0 journey should start with a sandbox
to use, play, learn. Involve non technological people.

Involve the business, not just the CIO

Author: Any final comment?

Subject: You may encounter a lot of resistance against collaborative/social computing. A lot of CIOs
are still afraid of it. The main risk evocated is that their employees are not going to be
productive. Well, what is their guarantee that they are working now? They might be
chatting at the coffee machine. Enterprise 2.0 will not change that or make it worse.

P a g e | 72
Annex 5: Data reduction process

Here is an extract of the data reduction spreadsheet used during the primary research, for
question 4.2 and subjects #1 to 9:

Q4.2. Were there Subject 1 - No people designated by management >> TOP DOWN IDENTIFICATION
any specific roles - Naturally some people have positionned themselves as Champions >>
within the BOTTOM UP IDENTIFICATION
organization like key
users, champions,
evangelists?
  Subject 2 Yes, identification of Uber-geek, open minded and naturally convinced of the
solution (without needing to explain them, to avoid a bad translation of the
message) + empowerment of these to diffuse the information around them.
>> BOTTOM UP IDENTIFICATION
Those user have also extra rights in the tool, to moderate or access reports
about the rollout, etc.. They must be active animator of the communities, in
terms of content. >> EMPOWERMENT

  Subject 3 Champions exist, but are not empowered and not declared evangelists. >>
EMPOWERMENT FAILURE
Very often, employee discover the technology when it is explained to a client
by a consultant! >> FAILURE

  Subject 4 Use of traditional Change Management team (WARNING : SUBJECT 4 HAS

MATURE ORGANIZATION, RESEARCH INDUSTRY)
+
Use of "Relationship Managers" : SPOCS between Business and IT

  Subject 5 Yes, though SME (Subject Matter Experts) that act locally as advocate of the
tool
Very important to have non technological people on board, that can explain
the business value behind these tools, especially SN

  Subject 6 You need to quickly identify the first real active users. >> DYNAMIC CYCLE

  Subject 7 Yes, Evangelists are designated (1 or 2 per country) >> TOP DOWN
IDENTIFICATION that must convince people at the local level + sell internally
the solution

  Subject 8 Communities facilitators that must be linked to the recognition system >>
LINK TO REWARDS

  Subject 9 Capital to identify champions and turn them into evangelists, not always done
here >> FAILURE
Do this process often to revive the flame >> DYNAMIC CYCLE

  … …

P a g e | 73
Here is an extract of the data reduction mind map used during the primary research, partially
“unfolded”:

9.

P a g e | 74
P a g e | 75