An Evaluation of the Critical Success Factors to implement Enterprise 2.

0 solutions within Belgian organizations

By Arnaud Wattiez

P a g e |1

Table of Contents
¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ © ¨ § ¨ ¥ ¤ ¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ § ¤ ¤ ¦ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ £ £ ¢   ¤ ¤ ¡
Table e s bs ac 2 L e ature rev e 2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.3. 2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.4. 2.5. 2.5.1. 2.5.2. 2.5.3. 2.5.4. 2.5.5. 2.5.6. 2.5.7. 2.6. 3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8. 4. 4.1. 2 4 5 5

De initions of Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0................................ .......................... 6 Overvie of Enterprise 2.0 solutions ................................ ................................ . 7

Benefits of Enterprise 2.0 solutions ................................ ................................ ........... 8 Usage and Benefits ................................ ................................ ............................ 8 Relevance to a specific organization ................................ ................................ 10

Risks of Enterprise 2.0 implementations................................ ................................ .. 10 Revie of the CSF for implementing Enterprise 2.0 solutions ................................ .. 13 Introduction and organizational strategies ................................ ...................... 13 Implementation strategies and scope................................ .............................. 13 User adoption strategies ................................ ................................ ................. 17 Cultural aspects ................................ ................................ ............................... 21 Governance................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 22 IT aspects ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 24 About return on investment ................................ ................................ ............ 25

Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 26

Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 28 Introduction and objectives................................ ................................ ..................... 28 Aim and objectives of the research ................................ ................................ ......... 28 Choosing the type of research: quantitative, qualitative or mixed ........................... 28 Qualitative approaches ................................ ................................ ........................... 29 Sampling methods and criteria................................ ................................ ................ 29 Intervie schedule................................ ................................ ................................ .. 30 Methodology for data analysis ................................ ................................ ................ 31 Pilot intervie s ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 33

Research Results................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 34 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 34
P a g e |2







¥ ¥


What is Enterprise 2 0? ................................ ................................ ............................. 6

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥


¥ ¥


I troduction and objectives

4.2. 4.3. 4.4.

Subject demographics ................................ ................................ ............................. 34 Implementation status in Belgium................................ ................................ ........... 35 Implementation Scope ................................ ................................ ............................ 36 About the origin of the implementation ................................ .......................... 36 About the scope of the implementation ................................ .......................... 37

4.4.1. 4.4.2. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8. 4.9. 5.

User adoption strategies ................................ ................................ ......................... 39 Cultural aspects ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 41 Governance aspects ................................ ................................ ................................ 42 Role of IT................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 43 Others ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 43

Discussion, conclusions and recommendations................................ ............................... 45 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 5.8. Introduction and objectives................................ ................................ ..................... 45 Implementation scope ................................ ................................ ............................ 45 User adoption strategies ................................ ................................ ......................... 47 Cultural aspects ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 48 Governance aspects ................................ ................................ ................................ 49 Role of IT................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 50 Others ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 51 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 51

6. 7. 8.

Limitations of the research and future research................................ .............................. 54 Reference list................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 57 Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 63 Annex 1: List of Enterprise 2.0 tools and their enterprise use................................. ............. 63 Annex 2: Intervie schedule ................................ ................................ ............................... 66 Annex 3: Invitation email ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 69 Annex 4: Intervie transcript sample................................ ................................ .................. 70 Annex 5: Data reduction process ................................ ................................ ........................ 75 

P a g e |3

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 o five critical success nly 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


Literature review

2.1. Introduction and objectives
This chapterprovides an overview of the relevant literatureand 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 discusstheoretical 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.


Deploy ment phase

User adoptionphase operations setup

Operations phase


Couple of months 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 thisreview is based upon literature and current thinking up to September 2010.

P a g e |5

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 serviceswhich aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing between users (Newman and 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 asEmergent 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

P a g e |6

become visible over time giving them the ability to quic ly 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 wor better.

The list of Enterprise 2.0 technologiesis 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:

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. Coo (2008) proposes a relevant classification of ESSPs using a 4 Cs formality/interaction matrix:




Fi ure 3. 4 Cs for ality/interaction matrix Source : Coo (2008)






Fi u

2. Ent pris 2.0 tools




Social Boo mar ing



Wi is

Social networ s








%$ # 


2.2.2. O

r i w



lu i


Video sharing

Virtual Worlds

Microblogging platforms       


RSS tools


P a g e |7

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 - likesocial networks - make it possible for people to make connections with and between both content and other people. ook (2008) C 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
P a g e |8

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. 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 middle management. especially for the

Kno ledge 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 userparticipation is sufficient and the network effect evocated by Metcalfe (2007) is reached.

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


P a g e |9

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 inthe 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. 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 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 toeliminate, 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 as some factors may directly

therefore much more likely to be cautious and circumspect. At second, self-policing exist to limit inappropriate behaviors, through informal leaders and influence peers.

P a g e |10

2. Risk of inaccurate information Both McAfee and Dawson (2009b) consider that the self-policing is very often aneffective 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 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 consideredvaluable 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:
P a g e |11

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. 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 adoptionphase 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
1 talented staff. Cook (2008) states that the member of the generation Y will enter the

workforce and bring their collaboration tools with them.If the organization doesn t provide the


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

platforms that allow them to search, link, author, tag, mashup and subscrib to business e 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.

2.5. Revie

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.

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
P a g e |13


of the CSF for implementing Enterprise 2.0

Cultural aspects User adoption strategies Governance

Implementation Scope

Critical Success Factors

IT Aspects

(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 (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), ESSPshave 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. Heexplains that the strength of a tie is proportional to the time and level of intimacy shared betwee two people. Granovetter n suggests that whatever is to be diffused can reach a larger number of people, and traversegreater social distance, when passed through weak ties rather than strongones. 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 ofstructural hole as a "separation between nonredundant 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 valuablenot 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 communicatio (see §2.2.2. Overview n 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











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. Thisadds 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. otta (2007) G 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 Advantages

Top down


Encourages a collaborative culture


The message to staff can be controlled


Peer recommendation more credible


Enforces the use of strategically important systems


The most useful systems actually get used


Essential for difficult to use software with high investment/training requirements



Behaviors may develop that suit the individual rather than the company


Often falls on deaf ears Requires constant reinforcement from superiors


Adoption happens at its own pace

Figure 6.Advantages and disadvantages of bottom-up and top down approaches Source :Cook (2008)

Cooks suggest that an optimumcombination of both top-down and bottom-up strategies is required.One of the key elements of a bottom-up approach is the concept that thevalue 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 emp hasize 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
P a g e |18

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 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 2.0solutions in the organization. McAfee (2009a) recommends a communication and training app roach 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 Re ards
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 selfish

ultimately lead to promotion and increased economic remuneration. The

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.


P a g e |19

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 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 amo ngst 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 everyworker.
P a g e |20

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 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 sresearch: 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

P a g e |21

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 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 hi ders innovation n (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

P a g e |22

According to McAfee (2009a), leaders can't simply assume that healthy communities will selforganize 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 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, willdepend 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 explicitlystating that certain topics are off limits and on the other

P a g e |23

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 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.

P a g e |24

McAfee (2009a) recommendsinvolving 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. On one hand Newman and Thomas consider that ROI can and should be measured. hen W 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 theref re o 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
P a g e |25

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 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 exampleMuller et al (2009) propose a different approach to measure the value of Enterprise 2.0 solution based on s, 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 andconsumption of information and knowledge among employees. They show that ROC canbe used to track the performance of several types of social media applications, and howROC can help to understand the usage patterns of items within those applications, andthe performance of employees who use those applications. and only then the resulting benefits to the

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 spreadquickly 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 approach. rather than a traditional top down


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

P a g e |26

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 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


Research Design

3.1. Introduction and objectives
This chapterprovides 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
P a g e |29

here is a purposive sampling (Henley Management College, 2005 b)

where the question is

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. Intervie

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

ser adoption strategies

Implementation Scope

Critical Success Factors

Fi ure 7.Aspects to consider hen implementin and managing Enterprise 2.0 solutions Source :the author

The goal is to let the subject spea around the main questions and the framewor with minimum interruption. To cover all relevant dimensions a subset of lower questions is als o established. The interview schedule is presented in Annex 2 and contains four parts. It is ordered in a way

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 :

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







A quic presentation of what is considered as Enterprise 2.0 solution in the frame

P a g e |31


so that no controversial topic appears at first to build rapport and trust with the participants





Cultural aspects

Governance & Ris s management






IT Aspects





Miles and Huberman (1994) propose a data analysis process in four interconnected steps

Data collection

Data display

Data reduction

Conclusions 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 eep trac of ideas that develop during the process.

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 ey 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 lin s and relationships between the codes. This is the theory building stage (Henley Management College 2005b). An extract of thismindmapis presented in Annex 5. The process is iterative and repeated along with the interviews.


After each interview the data is collected in a to (OneNote) and the ol














ey points are

P a g e |32

3.8. Pilot intervie s
Two pilot interviews were conducted before the main run. They allowed adjusting the interview scheduleand improving the overall process. The following observations were made: A significant amount of data is captured during the interview, and an interview templatesheet (with the predefined set of questions and empty spaces for the answers) isnecessary 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


Research Results

4.1. Introduction
This chapterpresents 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.
Interviewee 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Company Company 1 Company 2 Company 3 Company 4 Company 1 Company 5 Company 1 Company 6 Company 7 Role in Company HR Learning & Knowledge manager Consultant in Knowledge Management & Enterprise 2.0 Consultant Collaboration & Enterprise 2.0 Business manager CIO CEO & Consultant Enterprise 2.0 Consultant Consultant in Knowledge Management & Enterprise 2.0 Business manager Industry IT Services IT Services Editor SW Pharmaceuticals Editor SW Editor SW Services Services Transport

P a g e |34

Industry 10 Company 8 Consultant in Knowledge Management & Enterprise 2.0 Energy/ Telco Industry 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 arepresent in Belgium for two to three yearson 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 Belgianphone 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 reported reasons for this delay: Absence of majorBelgian 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. and here are some of the

P a g e |35

4.4. Implementation Scope
4.4.1. About the origin of the implementation
Decision level 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 Belgiumwhichinitiatea 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 stayingcontinuously 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
P a g e |36

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. 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 product2 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


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

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. 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 mostaddedvalue. Rollout size and type The size and type of therollout 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 toan 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, asit 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 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

as some

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, hall of fame with top - and worse - contributors of the month, recognitions from peers (recommendations), like tags (like, 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 thatcorporate 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 task based culture s 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 themof 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 th rest of the e 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 thenon-tangiblebenefits.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. Anotherone (#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 learnedabout the social experiments that took place in Belgium; most of them are still looking foradapted KPI s and efficient ways to measure their implementation success.

P a g e |44


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 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

rather than a traditional top down

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 morerelevant in the near future for projects that will follow the initial experiments 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 as serious business cases will

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 topdown approaches isnecessary. Word of mouth and viral adoption are usefulbut almost never sufficientfor Belgian enterprise 2.0 implementations andthey must be supported by a topdown 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 educationand 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 objectiveperspective 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


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 successof 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 implementationsare 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 like Microsoft

technologies were integrated in global collaborative solution rollouts sharepoint, for example.

It is therefore not directly applicable in the current Belgian contextasno 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 organizationssurveyed in the research with successful experiencesalready shared a culture of

P a g e |48

opennessprior 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 adoptionwithBelgian 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 clearlypolicies 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.

P a g e |49

Those are generally not specific to Enterprise 2.0 but were sometimes amended with sections on social software. 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).

P a g e |50

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 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. TheEnterprise 2.0 implementation frameworkproposed 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 P a g e |51

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 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 commandand-control approach and prefer a balanced process that encourages innovation and creativity while managing risks. Communicate clearlypolicies 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 alwaysaccessible to the collaborators.

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

P a g e |52


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

P a g e |53


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 implementationsare 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 adoptersand the market has become more mature The same limitation applies when . one considers the rapid evolution of the technology as some ESSPsconstantly 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:

P a g e |54

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 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 ev aluation 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

P a g e |55

example. Those interactions between the organization and the external world constitute large areas for future research.

P a g e |56


Reference list


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


Baecker, RM, Grudin, J, Buxton, W and Greenberg, S (1995). Readings in humancomputer 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 |57


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 [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 [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 [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 |58


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 [Date of access:07,30,2010]
P a g e |59


Hinchcliffe, D (2010) Web 2.0 and Enterprise E2.0 in Plain English [online]. Available at [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 [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 [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 |60


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 [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: McGraw Hill


O Reilly, T (2005) What is Web 2. O Reilly Network [online]. Available at[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 [Date of access:10,03,2010]


Reid and Spinks (2005), Analyzing Qualitative Data , Henley Management College,
P a g e |61

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 [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 |62



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 Blog Brief description Simple content publishing system that is easily updated, shows the most recent entry first, and can be subscribed to using RSS. 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. Wiki Document that can be edited by multiple users, with full audit trail of changes. Wikis are used extensively in organizations for a wide range of applications including collaborative document creation and project management. Social network Online community in which people create personal profiles and share information with their friends and contacts. 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. 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 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 P a g e |63

anyone on the Internet or a defined audience. Videos are usually short 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.

internal communication to employees by senior executives. Other applications 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.


Adding descriptions to documents to enable easier categorization and retrieval by self and others.

Tagging inside organizations can facilitate enhanced search and better information sharing within groups.

Social Bookmarking

Notation of documents as favorites in a public or semi-public space.

If broadly adopted, social bookmarking helps staff to find relevant information and reduce duplication of research.


Integration of disparate data sources or applications into a single tool.

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

Online simulated environments in which people can move around and interact through avatars that they control.

Virtual worlds are beginning to be commonly used in training and education. They are likely to be used increasingly as an alternative to

videoconferencing. Micro blogging Short (usually maximum of 140 character) Several vendors are now providing micro-blogging P a g e |64

updates that people can subscribe and respond to, building broad-based conversations.

systems for the enterprise. Currently a small number of organizations are experimenting with these tools

P a g e |65

Annex 2: Intervie

Demographic details of the intervie ee
The following information is gathered regarding the interviewee for reference only:
Contact information Name Date & place of interview Email Phone Company Company size Industry type Current position in organization For reference only will be anonymized For reference only will be anonymized

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.




P a g e |66

At the end I ll as you if you now of individuals and peers who could be interviewed passing along the snowball .
Main topics & Questions

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

RSS tools



Video sharing

Virtual Worlds

Supporting questions during the interview:

a. Did your organization use a demand driven approach Were there needs that

3. Please explain the scope of the implementation Which tool(s) did you start with For

a. Did you prioritize the implementation Focusing the effort on a specific type of

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

d. Was there a formal rollout (meaning non procedural)


d. Is there a recognition & reward program for users who contribute


c. Was there any communication plan


champions evangelists


b. Were there any specific roles within the organization li e ey users



a. How did your company encourage users to use the tool


4. Please describe the user adoption strategy






tool at the beginning



which target group

P a g e |67



c. Did you start with a project solving a current business problem



b. Did you locate existing initiatives


had been identified


2. Please explain how it all started. What was the origin of the implementation


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






Wi is

Social networ s

Microblogging platforms


Social Boo mar ing






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 ?

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. seerisk 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 |68

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 Enterpri se 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 yo ur 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 |69

Annex 4: Intervie

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 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 i n Belgium, a lot of CIOs are still very con servative in their thinking and they usually block the access to internet and a fortiori to Facebook Date : 22/11/2010

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: Subject: Please explain how it all started. What was the origin of the implementation? 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 compa ny values. Author: Subject: Did you start with all ESSPs at the same time? We started over 10 years ago with wikis. First as very static tools, to replace and facilitate website authoring and with one author. Author: Subject: It was not really collaboration minded then? 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


transcript sample

P a g e |70

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 stil l not using it today. In the Belgian industry, I think that tagging is not very present. It is very present on Facebook, though! 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 wo rk in teams around projects.

Author: Subject:

Please explain the scope of the implementation 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 Technology Adoption Program or called

TAP . This test environment is available to all, in

whoever you are in the company: CIO or assistant, project leader or technical engineer

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: Subject: Please describe the user adoption strategy 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 re al 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?

P a g e |71


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 peop le. It s important for one s personal marketing and justifies somehow one s profile data.

Author: Subject:

Was it quickly used? Did your company expect a short adoption process? 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 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: Subject: Is there any template or guidance on how to use those tools? 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 d on t do it. We should prefer online help techniques - on the spot that must be easy to use. We ve tried new initiatives like for example we have today some elders that still

introduction videos (youtube style) that are very promising. We (IT staff) realize that we are not always good in explaining s imple things to basic users. We are too technological. The education on business value is sometimes missing 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 while it

P a g e |72

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 t hese 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 an YY-er. In the past, only the communication department used to commun icate with the outside world. Enterprise 2.0 and web 2.0 change this and we have to be careful. Author: Subject: Do you know of a bad experience in mind about this? 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: Subject: Let s talk about the governance around Enterprise 2.0 solutions. How does it work? 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 i nternally Author: Does it come from management (top down) or from within the community of practitioners (bottom up)? Subject: Author: Subject: No, it is always bottom -up. Explain the role of the IT department in such implementation. 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 t he 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

P a g e |73

Author: Subject:

Any final comment? 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 |74

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 any specific roles within the 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 Subject 7 You need to quickly identify the first real active users. >> DYNAMIC CYCLE Yes, Evangelists are designated (1 or 2 per country) >> TOP DOWN IDENTIFICATION that must convince people at the local level + sell inte rnally the solution Subject 8 Communities facilitators that must be linked to the recognition system >> LINK TO REWARDS Subject 1 - No people designated by management >> TOP DOWN IDENTIFICATION - Naturally some people have positionned themselves as Champions >> BOTTOM UP IDENTIFICATION

P a g e |75

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

Here is an extract of the data reduction mind map used during the primary research, partially unfolded :

P a g e |76

P a g e |77

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful