The Everything 2.0 discussion - the real issue

Been itching to jump into the 2.0 discussion but have held back as I am a bit counter-every-theory... but why the heck not, risking much head shaking allow me a quick brain dump on one aspect of everything 2.0:

Work is a process, tasks in a sequence. Any type of process requires a framework, just like water will have to find the riverbed to become a river. No framework no process, even if the framework only resides in your head when doing the weekend chores. 

The framework we have for people processes/manual processes/knowledge work/Barely Repeatable Processes is first of all the organisational hierarchy to distribute and control work, plus the usual building blocks like deadlines, budgets, meetings (the most important cornerstone) and double-entry-bookkeeping (basis for the ubiquitous "data models"). 

With that framework controlling the processes, delivering work and organising feedback we have system which youngest part is only 514 year old, oldest harks back to before pen and paper. And the framework-science; management theory, has not made huge strides since the Roman Army despite Harvard Business School, McKinsey, BCG and 40,000 management handbooks in print at any time. Dilbert is not the only one unhappy with that framework.

With Everything 2.0 hope arrived, and many threw themselves onto it seeing how these methods often allows work to happen outside the hierarchical framework. It felt good for awhile, and everybody talked about the dawn of something new. 

In 2005 Hugh told us "somebody asked me to explain why corporate blogging works" talking about the membranes surrounding different parts of the organisation and suggested that "Blogs punch holes in membranes like like it was Swiss cheese". Precisely. 

But:

There is one thing missing; such methods do not deliver a new framework. And without a framework no process. And without process, no enterprise. 

Take a wiki - I often use the term "sandbox", fascinating place to be, but not much process-wise; little or no process ownership and thus no progress accountability. Excellent though as single task, single question, single write-up methodology - Wikipedia, SAP's SDN/BPX and in my early Linux days; the butt-saving newsgroups.

Actually, being even more "counter" than Dennis who in a guest post solicited this comment from Tim O'Reilly: "Dennis, this post demonstrates a shocking ignorance of what Web 2.0 is really all about. It’s the move to the internet as platform..." 

In my reality Dennis understands very well what it's about - an ignorance for what enterprise is about; a social group with a purpose that requires sequential tasks. An environment that is fully dependent on a process framework - the context and process he calls for - and the Web 2.0 does not deliver that. At best it is a set of nice and useful single-task tools and the "internet as platform" is pretty much a non-core issue and beside the point.

Ah, well, just had to pipe in...  :)

Comments

[Martin Koser]

Sig, while I fully agree that management science (sic!) is kind of dismal I am hesitant in following you all the way with processes and process frameworks.

This focus on orderly processes and frameworks is too much for me - see, modern business should rather think about how to implement and use flexible platforms for emergent processes. And here I hold that wikis (as one essential element of Enterprise 2.0) are much more than mere sandboxes ;) They allow for the emergence of structure as deemed fit by the people that use it. Granted, we'll have a hard time implementing workflows etc. in wikis, but it must not be a place void of structure.

To me Enterprise 2.0 holds great promise - especially for knowledge work processes that don't easily fit molds but evolve and are interpreted rather than automated (well, wasn't that your very own point with Barely Repeatable Processes et al. ?).

It all becomes clear when we understand Enterprise 2.0 not so much as a collection of tools - but as a multi-layered approach to business that incorporates (changed) paradigms, principles, methods and (yes, at last and least important) tools.

Cheers,
Martin _ frogpond

[sig]

Martin,

I think we differ in how we understand the terms "process" and "framework":

First - "orderly" process is jumping to conclusions, I merely say "process". And with process I simply mean sequence of tasks, something that can be quite "unordered": If a physician is studying an x-ray he will ponder and re-read the notes on the symptoms obtained earlier, perhaps ask you more questions then make a decision as to send you back for more x-rays, off to another expert, to plastering, to surgery. Hardly "orderly" that, but still very much a process.

The thing about a sequence is that it's dependent on the preceding task, not on the following task - humans are better than machines and that is why they're hired so why not let them make decisions?

For that there must be freedom to choose - as you say "emergence of structure as deemed fit by people" - why "structure"? Replace that word with "path" and we're aligned.

Second part is that by definition no process can exist unless there is a framework - but by all means that framework can be lodged in my head. That's the framework I'm using when doing the garden on a Saturday, enough by all means when working alone. Engaging the whole family I would have to start doling out work orders while keeping an eye on them. Expand that and the full organisational hierarchy starts emerging.

This will happen even in a wiki situation - the "emergence of a structure.." that you mentioned - because a framework is required and there are no alternatives we will always fall back to the learned framework.

Note also that the terms "process" and "framework" inevitably invokes images of something strict, orderly, structured. It does not have to be - look to nature and you'll find all processes having "loose" frameworks that allows on-the-spot changes to the path even if all is sequential.

Back to the Wiki: If I spot an idea that triggers my interest in a Wiki or in a newsgroup I'll want to do something about it, I even know what to do with it. So I throw myself at it, commenting and whatnot. Two things can happen:

1. I make lot of noise and nothing much happens, two days later I give up. This in my view as there is no ownership to that idea, I don't own it, the original poster is lukewarm, it dies. BTW, no ownership = no accountability either.

2. Wide interest is spurred and the participants calls for action. Next step is typical; a leader is chosen, and his task is to take it away and make decisions. He then will delegate tasks and on it goes as a "new structure" emerges - quite the same as the good old organisational hierarchy. With one single difference from the given corporate one, it emerges from the bottom up. But the moment the new leader starts delegating it has reversed to the top to bottom again.

What I'd like to see happen in that case would be a framework where I could choose to "pick up" the idea and take ownership, then send out for comments, get it back for more and so forth. And most important that this "other" framework allows all to see what is happening, recognise the new ownership and thus produce accountability.

Oops, this is getting long, I'll stop here for now :)

[Mohit Jain]

Hi,
This is very interesting blog . I just wanted to say thanks you for writing and giving your knowledge to such an informative helpful blog.
So thanks!