Six ways to make Web 2.0 work

The article states that, contrary to ERP and CRM, new tools are interactive and need a high number of individuals in order to create new content and improve participant work. Clay Shirky, Professor at New York University, identifies a ‘cognitive surplus’ of human potential that is not fully used in today’s society, and that may be absorbed by participative tools. Therefore, opening up participation from every company member becomes an essential factor. To this end, the study identifies six critical factors that determine the outcome of efforts to implement these technologies:
 

1.    Transformation to a bottom-up culture needs help from the top.
Web 2.0 projects often are seen as grassroots experiments, and leaders sometimes believe the technologies will be adopted without management intervention—a “build it and they will come” philosophy. These business leaders are correct in thinking that participatory technologies are founded upon bottom-up involvement from frontline staffers and that this pattern is fundamentally different from the rollout of ERP systems, for example, where compliancewith rules is mandatory. Successful participation, however, requires not only grassroots activity but also a different leadership approach: senior executives often become role models and lead through informal channels.

2.   The best uses come from users—but they require help to scale
Applications that drive the most value through participatory technologies often aren’t those that management expects.
Efforts go awry when organizations try to dictate their preferred uses of the technologies—a strategy that fits applications designed specifically to improve the performance of known processes—rather than observing what works and then scaling it up. When management chooses the wrong uses, organizations often don’t regroup by switching to applications that might be successful.

3.    What’s in the workflow is what gets used
Participatory technologies have the highest chance of success when incorporated into a user’s daily workflow. The importance of this principle is sometimes masked by short-term success when technologies are unveiled with great fanfare; with the excitement of the launch, contributions seem to flourish. As normal daily workloads pile up, however, the energy and attention surrounding the rollout decline, as does participation.

4.    Appeal to the participants’ egos and needs—not just their wallets.
Traditional management incentives aren’t particularly useful for encouraging participation.5 Earlier technology adoptions could be guided readily with techniques such as management by objectives, as well as standardized bonus pay or individual feedback. The failure of employees to use a mandated application would affect their performance metrics and reviews. These methods tend to fall short when applied to unlocking participation.
More effective approach plays to the Web’s ethos and the participants’ desire for recognition: bolstering the reputation of participants in relevant communities, rewarding enthusiasm, or acknowledging the quality and usefulness of contributions.

5.    The right solution comes from the right participants
With participatory technologies, it’s far from obvious which individuals will be the best participants. Without the right base, efforts are often ineffective. To select users who will help drive a self-sustaining effort (often enthusiastic early technology adopters who have rich personal networks and will thus share knowledge and exchange ideas), a thoughtful approach is required.

6.    Balance the top-down and self-management of risk.
A common reason for failed participation is discomfort with it, or even fear. In some cases, the lack of management control over the self-organizing nature and power of dissent is the issue. In others, it’s the potential repercussions of content—through blogs, social networks, and other venues—that is detrimental to the company.
Companies often have difficulty maintaining the right balance of freedom and control. Some organizations, trying to accommodate new Web standards, have adopted total laissez-faire policies, eschewing even basic controls that screen out inappropriate postings. In some cases, these organizations have been burned.
Companies often have difficulty maintaining the right balance of freedom and control. Some organizations, trying to accommodate new Web standards, have adopted total laissez-faire policies, eschewing even basic controls that screen out inappropriate postings. In some cases, these organizations have been burned.

From:‘McKinsey Quarterly, February 2009’ of Michael Chui, Andy Miller and Roger P. Roberts