In the past Don Tapscott and Nicholas Carr have debated on numerous occasions the topic “Does IT Matter”. At the FASTforward 08 conference Andrew McAfee made an interesting comment on how Web 2.0 tools and technologies mean IT will become a more powerful point of differentiation. Those of us at New Paradigm have always held the opinion that IT is a key component of competitive advantage.
The theme of FASTforward 08 was ‘the user revolution’ and it is the user/employee that is at the center of successful Web 2.0 solutions. The theory is that because employees are now informationalizing your IT systems being a fast follower is more difficult. The reason for this is two fold. First, implementation is no longer a matter of rolling out the tools, but rather convincing employees to adopt a collaborative mindset and way of working. Second, in the past the success of an ERP or CRM rollout revolved around a small team of experts and consultants which could to a certain extent be replicated by another organization. With collaborative tools success hinges on the entire organization contributing and developing the tools.
Look at some of the mainstays in the Web 2.0 suit of technologies - wikis, blogs, social networks, tags, RSS, predictive markets. The collaborative, social, user generated nature of these tools makes it almost impossible to duplicate the value from one organization to another. Sure, technically speaking it’s simple to install and configure Web 2.0 tools, but when you are talking about information technology, getting the information into those tools is an art form. This means that organizations that can leverage Web 2.0 technologies will gain competitive advantage based on the skill in which they use those technologies.
Comments RSS
| TrackBack URI
We definitely agree because it’s not about IT per se but the way you use it and you implement it. The use o wikis within a company could help spread information while increasing speed and usability. The contribution of any single user makes it an uncomparable cluster of knowledge. It also helps in fostering partecipation and creativity, thus creating a culture towards openness and motivation.
Comment by group 10 - February 27, 2008 6:27 am
Brendan, I totally agree with you, infrastructure is one thing, getting people to use it is another. and the organizational culture that supports the use of web2.0 techs is a real advantage for a company.
Comment by Forza Milan - February 27, 2008 6:31 am
Agree! The use of socially based Web 2.0 tools in the firm can definitely provide a competitive advantage when leveraged in the correct environments. The view that IT is an infrastructure is correct, but Web 2.0 tools enable one to gain knowledge management advantages… as cited above getting information into the systems and using them is a very different problem from installing the system. Not everyone has the ability to exploit the advantages of complex social tools so the development of human capital around such a tool can lead to a distinctive capability.
Comment by Doctor No - February 27, 2008 6:34 am
We think that, for the majority of traditional organizations, the effort of convincing employees to use the web 2.0 tools is too high in respect with the advantages provided by the knowledge sharing, making the implementig costs higher than the real benefits. This is the reason why a centralized information system could be better than one based on web 2.0.
Of course, web 2.0 could be very effective for new, innovative and high tech firms.
Comment by Luca, Viola, Alessandra, Anisia - February 27, 2008 6:37 am
I agree with the previous states, but I think that there is also another reason to use this kind of IT. A company that underinvests in Web 2.0 tools lies behind the technological frontier and it will be slow in engaging the new opportunities that countinuously arise. IT can sustain the position of the firms that are definitely able to take advantage of new chances, providing room for subsequent developments.
Comment by Otto Bismarck - February 28, 2008 3:50 am
We agree with the author on the point that Web 2.0 is an extremely powerful toll for an enterprise which is trying to leverage the knowledge across all its employees. In order to be able to do so, a company must be able to follow its own specificities and skills which are more relevant to the company itself. Web 2.0 technoogies are not a good instrument for every enterprise, especially if there are a lot employees within the organization that are actually resisting to their adoption
Comment by group 5 - February 28, 2008 2:35 pm
Each company has the responsibility to identify the areas in which web 2.0 can be applied and try to make employees aware of how great and useful it may turn to be. There is the chance it will not work but nowadays companies cannot just ignore the power of web 2.0 or provide the excuse that people hardly accept the collaborative work-style. Companies have to implement web 2.0 solutions wherever they find it successful and employees will agree upon its power and will be enthusiast to learn how to deal with it.
Comment by ItBg 6 - February 28, 2008 3:04 pm
You centre the problem. Like many other activities the key source are human resources. With smart and clever people you can go everywhere and use every kind of technology with success!
Comment by Otto Bismarck - February 29, 2008 4:37 am
I surely agree that IT matters and it could be a source of comepetitive advantage. I have also to say that this is true only as long as the employees are ready to use web 2.0 tools. In order to make these tools well accepted, the platforms have to be more standardized. Another key aspect is that employees must put a big effort in putting in only good and useful informations, in order to create value for the firm. Having said that, I think that nowadays people are more and more aware of the potential of these tools and are becoming very good in using them. For these reason I think that in young, fast growing, dynamic organizations the implementation of these tools could really give them a strong competitive advantage. Of course, people within the organization must trust and believe each other, but as long as this is true, people have a great incentive in sharing knowledge, in order to make the organization and themselves grow.
Other key success factors are: a clearly fixed goal to reach and make sure that only people with the right capabilities and pieces of knowledge use the platform and web 2.0 tools.
Comment by VAAL - February 29, 2008 6:03 am
People!This is the problem! X generation working people is too much reluctant to approach something different from the humus they lived since now, although they accept new infrastrucures they feel bad in using them, like something that itch them! On the other hand Y gen that is familiar in chatting, posting, sharing and so on, find their natural space using that stuff. How to solve the problem? Waiting for, I think… Web 2.0 is “steady developing” and the newcomers of today will be the veterans of tomorrow. Wait and see, at now, and then…carry on everyone its job…competitive advantage in not something to catch in a minute, companies will need both newcomers and veterans of 2.0 to have the right “art form” within the company
Comment by Rosarita Zapotec - March 1, 2008 1:52 pm
[...] Let me get this straight: You took all the money you made franchising your name and bet it *against* the Harlem Globetrotters? OK, we actually like Nicholas Carr. He is a smart guy, a gentleman and his blog is a must read for thoughtful debate about technology and business models. We just don’t always agree with him. [...]
Pingback by Wikinomics » Blog Archive » Let me get this straight: You took all the money you made franchising your name and bet it *against* the Harlem Globetrotters? - March 3, 2008 6:10 pm
“Other key success factors are: a clearly fixed goal to reach and make sure that only people with the right capabilities and pieces of knowledge use the platform and web 2.0 tools.”
This statement, to me, is exactly opposite of what you are trying to achieve with web 2.0. In fact, a company will not know the right capabilities and pieces of knowledge because there is no way to know your goal.
Of course, the goal of web 2.0 is easily stated: to promote human rights and culture, but that statement means different things to different people.
The real deferential is between promoting human rights and culture, and its other potential of maximising profits. Web 2.0 can be used for both, but with vastly different affect.
By establishing a goal first and creating strict rulesets to achieve those goals, you are countering any benefits that might be achieve with the use of web 2.0. In that case, web 2.0 is probably not what you are looking for and should be discounted as a viable alternative to how your company is conforming and diversifying.
Its like globalization, its basicly a lie, but those who can take advantage of it will benifit greatly by it. It is only a lie to those who want to pervert its intentions.
Comment by larry dunbar - May 3, 2008 12:39 pm
[...] Carr is a well-respected thought leader who we have agreed and disagreed with in the past (see here and here). A few weeks ago, he posted The Cloud’s Not So Silver Lining as a response to Sarah [...]
Pingback by Wikinomics » Blog Archive » Sorry Carr, the Cloud Looks Silver from Here - August 12, 2008 1:39 pm