On May 27, 2006, Professor Andrew McAfee coined in his blog [MCAFEE 2006-2010] "Enterprise 2.0" to evoke the impact of web 2.0 technologies on the enterprise.
On June 10, 2009, he posted a new article titled with "Toward a pattern language for Enterprise 2.0". The article displayed two two columns tables of patterns, labelled as "Patterns where 2.0 should replace 1.0" (called here Table I) and "Patterns where 2.0 is an alternative to 1.0" (called here Table II).
On the right column are patterns relevant to 2.0 and on the left column, patterns relevant to 1.0.
For example, line 1 of Table I features "Technology appears to have been designed for the user" opposed to "Technology appears to have been designed for someone other than the user — the developer, the boss, a lawyer, etc".
Line 2 of Table II features "Technology is used to share work and conclusions with others" opposed to "Technology is used to generate or analyze information individually".
Last line of Table II features "Technology is used to create and diffuse new knowledge" opposed to "Technology is used to encode previously-generated knowledge".
As Pr. Andrew McAfee put it, these tables are "just an initial set of patterns related to 2.0 work, which will hopefully be expanded and refined over time".
And as a matter of fact, each of these patterns invites to ask : how so ?
The expansion of these tables might be bound within the original field, the business impact of IT, -the subtitle of Andrew McAfee's blog-, or it might develop outside this field…
How about looking at the field of intellectual property (IP) and searching for "the business impact of IP"?
On January 16. 2010, The New York Times "Corner Office" published under the title "Structure? The Flatter, the Better", an interview with Cristóbal Conde, president and C.E.O. of SunGard conducted and condensed by Adam Bryant.
Two days later, Pr. Andrew McAfee posted on his blog some extracts which were organised around some management issues and asked his readers to feedback on "what they like and what they don’t like".
In a virtual space enabled by web 2.0, we might imagine the following exchanges taking place between Pr. Andrew Mc Afee, (inventor of Enterprise 2.0), Cristobal Conde and Tru Dô-Khac (inventor of the innovation management theory called Institute 2.0) avatars.
Andrew McAfee avatar: [Let’s address] organisational structure [of Enterprise 2.0].
Cristobal Conde avatar: Everybody has access to the same amounts of information.
Tru Dô-Khac avatar: amounts? Maybe…but qualified and relevant?
Tru Dô-Khac avatar : on second thoughts, Cristobal, you are right, every one has the same amount of information to create/innovate.
AMA : [Enterprise 2.0 generates ] peer effects [aside the traditional hierarchy lines of force]
CC : The answer is to allow employees to develop a name for themselves that is irrespective of their organizational ranking or where they sit in the org chart. Recognition from their peers is, I think, an extremely strong motivating factor.
TDK : That's fine within a company where the (physical) employees have waived all their intellectual property (IP) rights to the employer.
AMA : [A renewed structure should be put in place in Enterprise 2.0 to] fostering collaboration
CC : How do people get recognized? How do you establish a meritocracy in a highly dispersed environment? And it actually is not a question about monetary incentives.
TDK : Any idea for a type of recognition within a community of which (physical) members are not bound together by a contract to a unique legal entity (the enterprise) that governs their collaboration ?
These “imaginative” exchanges suggest that introduction of intellectual property governance might change enterprise organisation.
Nevertheless, we felt that emerging IP management practices/commons that might merit the suffix 2.0 (IP 2.0) could dramatically impact the critical capability of an enterprise that innovation is.
To summon web 2.0 technologies impact on organisation, Pr. Andrew McAfee coined the formula Enterprise 2.0.
To summon IP 2.0 commons impact on innovation, we adopted the formula Institute 2.0.
|Information Technology||Intellectual Property|
|Web 2.0||IP 2.0|
|Enterprise 2.0||Institute 2.0|
For example let’s address a critical leverage that fosters innovation: recognition for the creation of intellectual properties
Recognition starts at attribution, and we can observe already some cases:
-in movie credits, where every one of the team is mentioned, even the accountant or the purchasing manager (!),
-in a social network forum or discussion, where all posts are attributed,
-in a Paris based association of leading French companies addressing the value creation and innovation through the use of IT , where every research report is furnished with a list of contributors with their precise roles : sponsors, steering committee members, project manager, core team, reviewers, etc.
Then recognition actualizes into entitlements to be rewarded, which could be translated into owning some IP rights. Again, we can observe some cases:
-in the blogosphere were all blogs are copyrighted,
-in an university where professors/doctors are allowed to patent and own the patent.
There are more complex cases:
-the opensource industry,
-ParisTech Graduate School Open CourseWare.
- The Archilogy Institute , an open creative institute developing the next generation of IT governance practices which would be based on IT relationships rather than on IT processes.
To better examine these cases, we have created two notions that we first placed under the formule of "Institute 2.0" and "Knowledge worker 2.0" .
Pr. Andrew McAfee coined Enterprise 2.0 as "the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers (...)".
Under the empire of an antique Vietnamese poetic art, we have created the following definition for Institute 2.0 as "the use of emergent differentiated IP commons within a knowledge community.
- IP commons enables people to share, remix, reuse, -legally (Creative Commons definition)
- Differentiated means various contractual environments in which the path of creation and/or innovation is traceable and persistent over time.
- Emergent means that the commons have been made readable and understandable for reasonably educated people.
Adopting the Institute 2.0 definition would lead to say that
- Wikipedia is not an Institute 2.0 because the path of creation is not visible (some contributors stay anonymous);
Finally, we chose the label "2.20" instead of "2.0" to evoke the time of the journey for Institute 2.20 to be widely adopted: "2.20" which sounds "to twenty" or two twenty, hints to 2020, ten years from today, 2010.
This creative knowledge cell is a cell of The Archilogy Institute, an open creative knowledge community addressing governance within the enterprises and the ecosystems.
Tru Dô-Khac is chairman of X-Propriété-Intellectuelle, "X-PI", (X-Intellectual-Property), a professional group within Ecole Polytechnique ParisTech alumni association and that addresses intellectual property (IP) issues. On X-PI agenda: IP market places, impact of renewed IP commons (Intellectual Property 2.0) on businesses, dynamics between IP practices and IT use and governance.
Tru Dô-Khac's profile may be found at linkedin.