Enterprise2.0 Adoption models

I have been involved with successful adoptions of collaboration software and have gained considerable insight into best practices. I have also seen numerous examples of failed adoptions, ...the adoptions didn't really fail, the implementation just degraded to the point that the results were unsatisfactory and didn't achieve much. I was going to say didn't achieve the goal, but in many ways, the problem originates as the goal was undefined.

Here's a short message regarding adoption models.

EDIT: In this post Michael Idinopulos VP at Wiki company SocialText pretty much agrees with my message.

"What I'm saying here, and what I think a lot of the standard talk about virality and network effects misses, is that User Virality all by itself does not generate enterprise-wide adoption. User Virality may result in some nice, contained pilot successes, but in order to go enterprise-wide you need Use Case Virality as well."

| View | Upload your own

Comments

[Michael Idinopulos]

Kevin,
This is a great post, and I think your MIP model is spot-on. My interest is in the organizational scalability of the MIP model. A single insertion point can happen on the strength of one individual or a random flash of insight. But to get MIPs, you need an institutional capability to make it happen. What examples have you seen of companies successfully building those institutional capabilities?

[Kevin Shea]

Michael

Thanks for joining the conversation.

I am a consultant in this area and have been directly involved in institutionalizing solutions. My observations are based on my experiences and the ability to compare and contrast different adoption/execution models within the same very large company. My approach is to use a process approach, set up a basic framework, install a user agreed upon structure and let people at it. Then monitor, manage and adjust as appropriate.

The controlled MIP model reflects an organized approach to introduction, while the SIP is what I observed happening as IT simply released the app. What happened in the SIP model was that everyone saw the benefit, and as a result, moved rapidly to the tool. However, all they did was to mirror the existing poor process, and in the end, all they got was the same mess they started with. Much of it was quite isolated.

The MIP model developed more slowly. It was held back in a way to develop interest. The initial architecture was designed to be full scale, with a long term vision. It was intended to be highly integrated (far different than that SIP model), and serve 1000’s of users.

A SIP model may work in a small company, but I do not envision it being sustainable in the large scale operations. I do not accept Prof McAfee premise of the emergence (SIP) model in large companies. I think the examples at CIA, Pfizer, and others will point to this as well.

Kevin