Deans P.C (Ed). (2008) Social software and Web 2.0 technology trends. Hershey NY. Idea Group Inc.

Chapter IV, The Enterprise 2.0 organisation – Nadira Ali


So I have finally got the chance to go back over this reading and make some notes.

My first highlighted point was that knowledge will be shared and the only hope for survival is to be connected (Tapscott & Williams, 2006, cited). I think this is important because it highlights that being involved in Web 2.0 is not an option but a necessity for survival.

The next point I highlighted was that sharing is the norm and collective intelligence is highly valued (p.45). One of my hopes for our network is that people from all ranks contribute to discussions about various work subjects. In doing so, we will be able to capture a variety of perspectives on policy and practice. This is important as it can help make policy relevant to the practice by capturing feedback from those people ‘at the coal face’. It also allows the policy makers an opportunity to provide insight as to why following policy is important by being able to address practitioners questions quickly. The network is able to facilitate collective intelligence as referred to in the reading. This is further amplified by the reference to Andrew McAfee who believes that Enterprise 2.0 technologies will provide a corporate voice to those who typically do not have one (p.46)

On p.46 there is also a line which refers to the shift in organisational power which provides the user with greater control. I will need to address how this may be managed in my proposal as I am sure this will be a key question that will be asked.

A point which I hope will win support is that Web 2.0 applications allow employees to be more aware of what is happening thus creating a smarter environment (p.49). This also addresses one of my key aims which is to improve communication flow across the organisation information silos. The concept of a smarter organisation is amplified on p.51 where it states that when ideas are openly shared and communicated it becomes increasing possible to solve complicated problems. The common theme here is that Web 2.0 allows us to harness the collective intelligence of the organisation.


~ by dassocmed on August 3, 2012.

3 Responses to “Deans P.C (Ed). (2008) Social software and Web 2.0 technology trends. Hershey NY. Idea Group Inc.”

  1. Dale are the arguments and assertions in that book based on evidence or rhetoric?

    I have been so eager when reading about technologies that facilitate communication and collaboration that it took a while for me to realise that they all wrote about “can” and “could” and “will” but very few said “did” “had” (or any synonym expressing fait accompli).

    Most of the papers I found in research for past subjects that reported on actual results described somewhat disappointing results and thankfully analysed why. The first that comes to mind is one about an intranet, but he makes good points about both the workplace culture, and individual willingness to express viewpoints at all:

    Thorn, W. J. (2005, June). Developing and implementing a user-centred intranet: Organisational culture, communication and knowledge management. Auckland University of Technology. Retrieved from;jsessionid=CC1A5111500AB6DED54D6908B3E6BDC2?sequence=1

    Oh another one, this time from health services:

    Marten, A., & Milve, L. (2011, August 30). ‘Every change is difficult’ A case study of employee behavior in Mölnlycke Health Care’s intranet. Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive. Retrieved from

    If you know of any papers that describe beating the 1% rule (only a wikipedia description for sure, but I’ve not yet seen counter-facts); I hope you’ll send me references.

    It may be that 1% is still good – depending on the size of your community.

    • Mica, I had not seen the 1% rule before. It seems to fit with other stats I have seen. Catherine Grenfell had similar stats about regular use. I did read a blog post the other day about participation rates in Google + These appear to be ‘super users’ so the story needs to be taken in that context. What I got from this was that high rates of interaction can occur but it takes time and effort. No different to how it is in real life really. I get the sense that there is this expectation that once you move online you will be able to get a whole lot of likes and high levels of engagement without much effort. I believe the old saying of ‘you will get out of it what you put in’ rings true here.

      • The “what you put in” is the bit I think many (or just me) need to learn, and what has been either in short supply, or over my head in what I have read. I’ve been so busy plowing through the superficial and old stuff that I haven’t yet dug into the research I wanted: I believe models and theories of community development would be relevant if libraries are serious about “engaging” their communities through social media.

        On another note, a friend’s studies in another field reminded me that I wanted to check into “rules of conversation”. Yes, I am so introverted, that over the years I have tried to learn such a thing from theory rather than absorption. Oops, just broke one of the rules. I’ve been wondering whether rules of conversation might be helpful for other introverted librarians to develop their tactics for conversational use of social media.

        For examples, there are Readers’ Digest 12 Golden Rules, Penn’s rules, or Grice’s Maxims (which appear to boil down to the same thing). Hm, I have Carnegie’s somewhere too. I’d welcome your thoughts over at my post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: