Is social computing biting the heels of the enterprise?

I've been thinking about what it means to work for an enterprise and how this situation will change for people over the next decade or so. On first blush, it might seem obvious -- you (a worker) enter into a contract with a corporation where you apply your knowledge, skills and creative aptitude to create, produce, solve, communicate, etc... "stuff" for a minimum of 40 hours per week in exchange for pay, healthcare, fringe benefits, and some sense of security about the future. Let's call the application of knowledge, skills, etc..., as described above, "work" (I know for some lucky people, it doubles as play). And let's assume that as you work, you engage with particular people within the enterprise (maybe each of these people represent a larger set of people and work) and, in some cases, outside the boundaries of the enterprise -- customers, partners, suppliers, analysts, subject matter experts.

Hey, that's a great case for a social computing platform, right?
Let's let everyone mingle in an emergent digital (i.e., geography-agnostic) space that can capture connections, ideas, notes for later, stray thoughts. I was a big fan of the social computing tools IBM was starting to release while I was there, as they helped me do my work. It was fun to be part of a community of early adopters. These tools, circa early 2007, included WikiCentral Dogear, and W4. Recently, I've been walked through some of the newer tools such as Cattail, Fringe, and Beehive. In my new role, I consult with other enterprises about what sorts of experiences they should provide to their customers, partners and employees via digital platforms.

For context, the generic names of these tool sets include: (the well-worn) blog, wiki (e.g., Wikipedia, of course), social network (e.g., Linked In), social bookmarking (e.g., del.icio.us), micro-blogging (e.g., Twitter), location-based services (e.g., Dodgeball, Brightkite) and what I think of as community-curated content sites such as Digg.com, Last.fm, and even Flickr, a photo sharing site. Hey, some of these ideas aren't that new -- but the way they're executed and delivered is fresh in one way or another (that Web 2.0 je ne sais qua).

More fun at work
Everyone loves this stuff! It's fun to make work more social, and more digital. Why is digital fun? More exposure to images and sounds -- in other words, more media. The tools' interfaces are getting more interesting -- less wonky than traditional software packages and less hierarchical than traditional web sites. Many of them have a sense of humor. These tools make it possible for people to just *be* online, socially. Last decade, someone spending hours a day online was a loner. Now you can spend hours online being social – cultivating relationships that are essential for your work and play. And for work-related purposes, you can be online with or without a task plan or a particular intention. You can hang out, and information will find you -- information you knew you needed, and also information you didn't know you needed. Your social digital self has become a magnet, and all you have to do is show up. This is really the key.

Picture this. You have a platform, whether provided by your enterprise or part of the public digital fabric, and you're hanging out there with your friends, colleagues, and other associates -- people from your industry, your clients, your partners, etc. What do you talk about? Everyone's there, curious and listening! What is company confidential information? Do we care what our clients think about how we spend our time online? About who we know? Are we inadvertently introducing clients to partners when we prefer to keep the business to ourselves? As we think out loud, are other people profiting from our ideas?

A challenge to the enterprise identity
A company that feels it has a lot to lose (rightly or wrongly) might get a crook in their neck and reinforce their enterprise boundaries. “Smart companies” (or maybe just contemporary companies) are letting it all unfold to form a new landscape, terrain, playing field -- choose your geographic metaphor. Let the cards fall where they may. We don’t know what’s possible yet, so we don’t have a plan to encourage or discourage it.

I think a better way to come at this is to separate the questions that stem from merely a fear of the unknown from the questions that have real implications for business. Which ones are those? I think this is ultimately about a shift in the definition of work and employment. Perhaps, going forward, working for an enterprise means that you're playing on a team. Which team? That's the million dollar question. It could be the senior executives and the board of directors. It could be everyone else who's also loyal to and playing for this team at any given moment -- a community. It could even be the brand, rather than a group of individuals, per se.

The implications for long-term loyalty and affiliation differ greatly among these options. My gut says that the kind of team that wins the greatest loyalty is the one inspired by the brand, much as in professional sports. You can be a Yankee fan for decades, even as the players and management change, and even though you're not even *on* the team, yourself! I always found this fascinating. Is it a blind love? On the other hand, if you're playing to line someone else's pockets (or if that's simply how you feel about your contribution), then there's a very short-lived need for loyalty -- defined exactly by the terms of your employment. Let's say, for good measure, that community is somewhere in between; that there are a lot of variables in the make up of a community; and that community, while varied and complex, is probably the locus of the answers to my pondering questions.

Where does this leave us, or me, with this line of thinking. I wanted to pin this back to a practical set of questions about what it means to work for an enterprise. If you follow my logic, then what kind of contract should a person have with an enterprise -- or with several enterprises, concurrently or over time? Where will our current employer/employee relationship model begin (or continue) to disintegrate, and how will social digital platforms accelerate the process? For example, as a former and fairly recent IBMer, I would love to be able to peruse the IBM org chart and other connections to locate expertise from my community. (Yes, I said “my” community.)

Looking at this question from a different angle: What could an enterprise of the future be -- what would its constitution be? Employees, assets, debts… or something else? If you agree with the premise that the boundaries are shifting, then doesn’t it follow that the full shape and make-up of the enterprise will need to be rethought?

I’d love to hear your thoughts about the role social computing plays in our relationships with enterprises.

With gratitude,
Ruth Kaufman
User experience person @Avenue A | Razorfish; formerly creative problem solver @IBM/ibm.com

Comments

[ronald Sorenson]

we are creating a stste of the art social network and we have a plan so far ahead of its time wanna ride the wave???

[Ethan McCarty]

Wow, Ruth -- what an incredible posting. There are indeed so many implications to the changing work/social landscape. It goes far beyond the simple stuff like telecomuting and diminished office culture. There is a whole new way of thinking about employment emerging -- Sam Palmisano, IBM's CEO -- talked about it a bit at the Global Leadership Forum recently and IBM also launched some interesting programs to help IBMers (some including alumni) start to work within this new conception of employment. For example, we recently covered in our e-magazine a new program that recruits alumni for opportunities in Asia and another program that sends IBMers off to developing markets to help kick start their economies. Basically, a whole suite of new programs and tools are emerging including Greater IBM Connection -- some connected to the web 2.0 phenomenon -- that begin to address this big shift in the way people work in big enterprises. I think you bring up a really salient point -- what are going to be connecting to when we say "I work for such-and-such a company?" I'd argue, it's the people...not just the paycheck, benefits, laptop etc that you get with the job. I'm curious how this will all play out in jobs that are less computer-focused too -- it seems pretty clear that this trend will continue to sweep the knowledge workers...but how about manufacturing, travelers, retail, hospitality services etc?

Project reach out
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/greateribm/connections/connections_article42.shtml

Corporate Service Corps
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/greateribm/connections/connections_article29.shtml

[Jasmin Tragas]

Thanks for this great post Ruth. I agree the boundaries of the Enterprise as we know it are shifting.
I find it difficult to imagine how I could get work done effectively without social bookmarking, social networks, blogs & RSS, wikis etc
As somebody who works part time, I find these tools invaluable to keep connected to some great minds in the Enterprise. They also help me connect with overseas colleagues who are subject matter experts.
Knowledge is being turned inside-out - and "the Enterprise" needs to be smart not only in selecting the right tools, but in laying down the right foundations to develop a community spirit.

[Ruth Kaufman]

Thanks for the comments! One of ideas I'm trying to wrap my head around is that social computing, while it can help an enterprise connect its own employees to each other, it also helps connect people across enterprises, other institutions and communities, and free-floating individuals. That is, it connects people across organizational boundaries and also codifies those relationships, making them persistent and browsable by others. So when you're employed by an enterprise but interacting with a cross-organization group that is random or ad hoc or, more to the point, not defined by corporate contracts, what does that say about who your team /really/ is? How does that affect your feeling about who you work "for"? And what are the implications for the enterprise in the realms of IP, employee retention, etc.?

[Ethan McCarty]

That's a really important point and one I think about often -- the "team" I'm on certainly extends beyond IBM. Some of the team members' activities and responsibilities are more formally defined than others. For example, if I work with a vendor to design something for my work project, they're pretty formally working on the IBM team at that moment. But what about if I use some informal networks -- like reaching out to an IBM alumni for her advice on something, or looking something up on a public wiki etc? There's a collective sense of quid pro quo in operation on some level and also an indication that individuals can increasingly become sort of global entrepreneurs -- working on projects, forming teams, building skills etc -- associated with enterprises, but not necessarily hard-wired to them. Naturally, this raises existential questions about the role of a brand in this context, nature of employment, how to choose the right projects, shareholder expectations....the list goes on.

[Ruth Kaufman]

Ethan: exactly!

[Geoff Carss]

Hi Ruth, One of the challenges faced in adopting social computing in an enterprise is that the interactions, while incredibly valuable to engaged individials, do not always appear to make a material benefit at the 'corporate' level. As a fairly recent ex-IBM'er working in a large complex organisation can be challenging. In Imaginatik we have been working up a social computing approach for the enterprise based on engaging staff, customers, suppliers etc (the extended enterprise) to engage in collaboratively solving problems and creating ideas to well defined challenges faced by the enterprise - and this approach has delivered huge benefits to our customers (including IBM, Nokia, HP, Xerox, Pfizer etc etc)- and its runs on an IBM Platform. The approach and software solution we have developed, with the underlying research, is detailed on our web site - take a look.

Regards

Geoff

[Ruth Kaufman]

Hi Geoff, Your product looks interesting. I see what you're saying about the "external access module". I'd be interested in learning more about how you determined the approach to allowing external access. For example, is there a need or desire for company-level business rules, or does one set truly suit all external access? Perhaps we could talk offline. Is your contact info findable on your company's web site?

Thanks!
Ruth

[Ruth Kaufman]

My colleague Rob Zand just posted this response on his own blog: http://www.robzand.com/blog/the-office-of-the-future

My main takeaway from this is that employers (enterprises) need to be porous -- flexible with their boundaries -- if they want to maintain the employer/employee relationship, particularly with the most valuable contributors and leaders. It also reminds me of Neal Stephenson's book Snow Crash, where corporations end up owning and operating municipalities -- a purely civic duty.

[David Sim]

Ruth, A very useful and enjoyable article. Having fallen in love with Wikinomics, it's a huge step forward to present technology which can create the extended enterprise, involving customers, partners, suppliers and more. My background is large, public sector organisation who operate departmental silos of knowledge, skills and information. You have got me thinking - it might be easier to break down these departmental barriers by being completely radical and stretching beyond the enterprise to knowledge and expertise elsewhere.

I'm really excited about this meeting of Wikinomics and Social Media - many, many thanks for this. I'm off for a long, hard think!

[Ruth Kaufman]

David, that's fantastic! I hope you can share the strategy and approach you adopt, maybe back on friendfeed.

[David]

Ruth and others - all interesting postings. This is a fascinating debate. Maybe we forget how far ahead IBM is in thinking and behaviour? (speaking as one who remembers when Blue Pages was new!). The links below point to articles that show how reluctant many (most?) companies are to move at all significantly in this direction. Start-up IT companies are not a good example - you would expect their inhabitants to "get it"! The real challenge is in longer standing and non-IT companies, where, I feel, change will be a slow process.
http://management.silicon.com/careers/0,39024671,39168093,00.htm
http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39258580,00.htm

[Lynn Wheeler]

I had gotten blamed for online discussions on the internal (corporate) network in the late 70s and early 80s. The internal network was larger than arpanet/internet from just about the beginning until around the summer of 1985. misc. past posts mentioning the internal (corporate) network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet

--
40+ yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar70