[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Anthony Poncier, ElenaBRuiz, Axyome, Knowledge Plaza, topsy_top20k and others. topsy_top20k said: is 'enterprise 2.0 adoption' wrong? http://cot.ag/awJMrv ^EBe [...]
On this topic, even though we are considering a name change for The 2.0 Adoption Council, I assure you it has nothing to do with « adoption » not being relevant to our members.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. It takes a village to transform a large company. Viral growth will only matter unless you introduce working socially with inspiration, order and intelligence.
Further, a better reference for « Adoption » is not the dictionary, but rather Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_lifecycle Its heritage is sociological which is the basis of this organizational transformation.
From Wikipedia:
« The technology adoption lifecycle model describes the adoption or acceptance of a new product or innovation, according to the demographic and psychological characteristics of defined adopter groups. The process of adoption over time is typically illustrated as a classical normal distribution or « bell curve. » The model indicates that the first group of people to use a new product is called « innovators, » followed by « early adopters. » Next come the early and late majority, and the last group to eventually adopt a product are called « laggards. »
The demographic and psychological (or « psychographic ») profiles of each adoption group were originally specified by the North Central Rural Sociology Committee, Subcommittee for the Study of the Diffusion of Farm Practices (as cited by Beal and Bohlen in their study above). »
(glad you liked the ID field… it took some time to find sth like that )
First, I know what you mean when you call it 2.0 Adoption, I’m sure you are not talking about forcing anyone (and sure there are stages in adoption we all know by experience as users or as evangelists…)
Wikipedia is just another equally useful source, which by the way is made upon language, and that’s why I wanted to think it over, to draw attention to what we are really saying when say things…and that’s when referring to a dictionary makes sense.
It might be just a trifle, in the sense of just-another-discussion-on-terminology, but our choice of words, our language, implies a mindset (whether we are aware of it, or not, whether we like it or not). When you adopt an app, you might welcome it or not (think about that situation, an employee adopts a given app just because it’s an IT decision or a strategy coming from way above…), when you say, know or feel you’re welcoming and embracing an app, you’re definitely adopting it, sure, but it definitely rules out any possibility of not liking it…
Welcoming and embracing an app definitely includes ‘adoption’, but adoption of sth doesn’t necessarily imply ‘welcoming and embracing’.
That doesn’t contradict at all, methinks, what you say here:
« It takes a village to transform a large company. Viral growth will only matter unless you introduce working socially with inspiration, order and intelligence. »
Sounds like embracing or welcoming equals chaos and disorder (…?) I don’t think so.
What I want to say is that the word choice (and what we mean with it) might be wrong, because I’m sure that what you really mean and want and aim is a company willing to use, -enjoying-, a given 2.0 tool (top-bottom, bottom-up, orderly, intelligently…)
And yep, I’m also aware I won’t change >3,000,000 google results either
—
(so I assume you don’t agree either with P. Thornton quote…)
At this point of my reflection I’m not sure whether it’s about the word or the idea of driving adoption (that is at the heart of many implementation approaches). The more I think about it the more I’m convinced that in many cases « driving adoption » is used as a substitute for « sense » and « alignment » what implies, in concrete terms, to make people use a tool and suscribe to the E2.0 thing rather than trying to solve their actual problems.
That’s exactly what I meant. I’m now heading to your post to read your thoughts on this. Can’t help it, but ‘driving adoption’ triggers some mental schemata related to lack of spontaneity and willingness…
Back in November, at the Enterprise 2.0 show, we brought this issue up in front of the E20 community, both in a published piece and in our speaking engagements. We released a white paper on Business Value as the primary indicator of social software success. (http://www.socialtext.com/blog/christopher-lynch/2009/11/).
While adoption is important, social software’s ability to drive new deals, generate revenue and satisfy customers is what we think about most. We honestly think this focus is not only good for our customers and us as a vendor, but this whole facet of the software industry in general.
Thanks for commenting. Sure, when you correctly say « social software’s ability to drive new deals, generate revenue and satisfy customers is what we think about most », I’m sure that’s what Susan or anyone wants too. Thing is, among others… how should we do it or what should the approach be for employees and companies -and therefore vendors, consultants, etc? company decision-takers « driving the adoption » on a given web-based or package solution for the rest of employees? or is there a ‘better’ way?
In our corporation (100,000+ people), we re clearly talking about adoption in the sense of your definition. The organization as a whole will be ‘accepting something [...] foreign to one’s nature’. Some people will embrace it. Expecting ‘happy acceptance’ in a huge enterprise almost made me laugh. Nice wish, but we are dealing with real organizations here. Starting a project based on wishful thinking will not guarantee its success.
I am not expecting happy acceptance in a huge enterprise. As a matter of fact, what you describe actually confirms what I say, ie. decision coming from top levels, and then bottom levels accepting it…while embracing it, well, that’s another issue. To me, there’s no real willpower when something is imposed, and you get the best of people when they are truly motivated. I haven’t mentioned ‘wishful thinking’ nor I think remembering people what each word actually means and implies is wishful thinking.
And – I agree that the objectives of 2.0 tools are « to drive new deals, generate revenue and satisfy customers ». However, semantics asside, in the context of 2.0, if you don’t adopt the new toolset than just how do you realize the benefits from it?
Let me share a real example of top-bottom adoption vs paying attention, looking into what your employees and involved are actually demanding and or using -when not working as well. It’s not an ‘enterprise’, but a ‘university’ (for this matter it’s the same): teachers, researchers (not to mention undergrads) using YouTube to share videos on projects, lesson, you name it. Decision-makers, who have been introduced to some new cool app, deciding to set their own streaming video channel where videos can be -wow- rated, commented and embedded… for the employees, students and researchers community. Outcome? = very low participation after 2 years of ‘adoption’. Guess where the community, the action is taking place. I have the feeling this is not uncommon…
I don’t have the right answer to this problem, if I had, I’d be millionaire. I’m just going back to the basics, i.e. what we are saying when we talk, write and give speeches on this. Maybe it helps realizing that some self-assessment or meta-assessment on ‘enterprise 2.0 adoption’ might be helpful.
Sorry, but your response smacks of more semantic word games. Of course we test it (maybe even multiple « its »,) we develop and run pilots, we embrace adopters (early or otherwise), we listen to skeptics and learn from them and while we want people to embrace what we have with open arms, we would be foolish to think that a large corporation is going to change what they are doing quickly and wholeheartedly embrace bew technology, process, techniques and culture. Some individuals and groups will, some won’t. So if we believe what we are doing is going to provide business value (and continual assessment is necessary to validate this) then we help the organization to adapt and adopt – because the vision may not be immediately clear to everyone. Then we adjust our plans based on what’s working, and what’s providing value, and we test some more, and we adjust again – because no general ever executed the exact battle plan he drew up before the battle started.
Nobody who is working on implementing a change plan such as this (and that is what we are ultimately talking about) expects « happy acceptance » or ready adoption.
It appears that we are caught up in semantics and losing focus of resolving the issue at hand. Whether you call it adoption, awareness, usage or technology diffusion or nom du jour – the problem is the same. The challenge is not trivial. The reason it is Googled so much is because of the significant transition & change management that needs to occur to have it used pervasively. Let’s refocus energy back on resolving the issue. Bantering on what to call the problem offers minimal value.
I am not sure whether you read my replies to comments here as well.
Here the discussion is not whether the change or issue is trivial. Far from it. It sounds as if tackling the issue from the language point of view is simplifying it. As if language is just a trifle… I am somewhat puzzled by the way people so usually talk ’semantic issues’ down, or just language. I guess that what Kant, Locke, Humboldt, or even Sapir-Whorf said on language and thought offers minimal value to many people. Well, not for all those people studying that at the universities, researchers, scholars…etc. So, nope, it’s not a ‘you-like-or-dont-like-this-name’ discussion.
The way we name ‘problems’ reveals the way we approach them (if you come from the ‘elearning’ world you’d understand what wrong things can go, being the ‘elearning’ term the worst mistake ever made, 15 years after it’s still a failure). More examples from ‘real life’: a man kills his wife, government A calls it ‘gender violence’, government B calls it ‘homicide’. Yeah the problem is there, why should we discuss on the way they call it? Well, don’t they trigger different things in your mental schemata? Sure they do. The way they call that ‘problem’ reveals a lot more behind. Sorry for the comparison, but for that matter it serves its purpose.
This post wasn’t intended to solve the issue, but precisely to focus on the awareness of the meaning of words. And the post is full of hedges and modal verbs, precisely to pose a question, not to assertively claim or make fun or talk derisively on anything or anyone. If you don’t like the focus of the post or think it offers minimal value, then -seems to me- it’s very easy…
I agree with you: let’s refocus energy back, yep, but let us do that from every angle. You never know.
I’m having trouble getting excited about the semantic slicing here. It’s clever to cite the dictionary definition and use it to question the use of the term « adoption, » but Susan’s cited the relevant source of the word in the corporate world, and the Adoption Life Cycle is long-established and has no pejorative connotations.
That point aside, what’s wrong with pushing/driving people to accept something that is foreign to them? Of course it’s foreign if they’ve never used it before, never thought in such ways before, never interacted in such ways before.
Why would they feel a desire to embrace yet another software system piled on their crowded corporate desktop — haven’t they lived through enough hyped-up system roll-outs to have acquired a healthy skepticism? It’s great to encounter the people in the enterprise who grasp what Enterprise 2.0 is about immediately, but they are not the majority. The majority must be shown both how to and why to use the new technology.
« Driving adoption » is just shorthand for all the things we do to get people to use the technology effectively. It’s both carrot and stick, top-down and bottom-up, broadcast and viral — whatever it takes in your particular organization and culture.
I hope people « embrace » it fully, but that’s too much to hope for at the start. Is it what we all want to see? Absolutely.
Thanks for the comment.
« but that’s too much to hope for at the start », well I hope not. How long does ‘that start’ last?
Question: can we totally refute the following statement: « XY app adoption fail because users didn’t embrace it »? So again, why not putting the focus, stress, emphasis on what employees embrace or would most likely embrace…But maybe that’s even harder.
No argument here about putting the emphasis on what employees will embrace. That’s a key aspect of any adoption strategy! In my experience with developing communities, that alone is not enough.
I was hedging when I said it’s too much to hope for people to embrace at the start. I’m not expecting the majority of our community members to truly embrace the technology for years, at least. Change is difficult for people and takes time. With time, experience and familiarity, people come to accept and hopefully embrace changes.
But I don’t for a minute believe that a it’s a failure when a community uses Enterprise 2.0 technology effectively and still has a many people that don’t go as far as « embracing » it. Using the technology effectively is my measure of success. I *want* them to readily and happily accept the technology (embrace it), but I’ve concluded that this stuff just isn’t everybody’s cup of tea — you can’t please everybody.
[...] something yours, chances are it may not work in the long run (that’s why I posed the question adopting vs embracing). And b) is there a target to work [...]
Twitter
Youtube
Vimeo
SlideShare
LinkedIn
Facebook
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Anthony Poncier, ElenaBRuiz, Axyome, Knowledge Plaza, topsy_top20k and others. topsy_top20k said: is 'enterprise 2.0 adoption' wrong? http://cot.ag/awJMrv ^EBe [...]
Hey! I like that Twitter ID field, very cool!
On this topic, even though we are considering a name change for The 2.0 Adoption Council, I assure you it has nothing to do with « adoption » not being relevant to our members.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. It takes a village to transform a large company. Viral growth will only matter unless you introduce working socially with inspiration, order and intelligence.
Further, a better reference for « Adoption » is not the dictionary, but rather Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_lifecycle Its heritage is sociological which is the basis of this organizational transformation.
From Wikipedia:
« The technology adoption lifecycle model describes the adoption or acceptance of a new product or innovation, according to the demographic and psychological characteristics of defined adopter groups. The process of adoption over time is typically illustrated as a classical normal distribution or « bell curve. » The model indicates that the first group of people to use a new product is called « innovators, » followed by « early adopters. » Next come the early and late majority, and the last group to eventually adopt a product are called « laggards. »
The demographic and psychological (or « psychographic ») profiles of each adoption group were originally specified by the North Central Rural Sociology Committee, Subcommittee for the Study of the Diffusion of Farm Practices (as cited by Beal and Bohlen in their study above). »
Hi Susan!
(glad you liked the ID field… it took some time to find sth like that
)
First, I know what you mean when you call it 2.0 Adoption, I’m sure you are not talking about forcing anyone (and sure there are stages in adoption we all know by experience as users or as evangelists…)
Wikipedia is just another equally useful source, which by the way is made upon language, and that’s why I wanted to think it over, to draw attention to what we are really saying when say things…and that’s when referring to a dictionary makes sense.
It might be just a trifle, in the sense of just-another-discussion-on-terminology, but our choice of words, our language, implies a mindset (whether we are aware of it, or not, whether we like it or not). When you adopt an app, you might welcome it or not (think about that situation, an employee adopts a given app just because it’s an IT decision or a strategy coming from way above…), when you say, know or feel you’re welcoming and embracing an app, you’re definitely adopting it, sure, but it definitely rules out any possibility of not liking it…
Welcoming and embracing an app definitely includes ‘adoption’, but adoption of sth doesn’t necessarily imply ‘welcoming and embracing’.
That doesn’t contradict at all, methinks, what you say here:
« It takes a village to transform a large company. Viral growth will only matter unless you introduce working socially with inspiration, order and intelligence. »
Sounds like embracing or welcoming equals chaos and disorder (…?) I don’t think so.
What I want to say is that the word choice (and what we mean with it) might be wrong, because I’m sure that what you really mean and want and aim is a company willing to use, -enjoying-, a given 2.0 tool (top-bottom, bottom-up, orderly, intelligently…)
And yep, I’m also aware I won’t change >3,000,000 google results either
—
(so I assume you don’t agree either with P. Thornton quote…)
—
Cheers
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by ElenaBRZ: Is ‘Enterprise 2.0 adoption’ wrong? http://bit.ly/c23UnV…
I also think there’s something wrong with adoption and tried to tackle it a former post (http://www.duperrin.com/english/2009/11/26/does-driving-adoption-mean-being-off-the-point/)
At this point of my reflection I’m not sure whether it’s about the word or the idea of driving adoption (that is at the heart of many implementation approaches). The more I think about it the more I’m convinced that in many cases « driving adoption » is used as a substitute for « sense » and « alignment » what implies, in concrete terms, to make people use a tool and suscribe to the E2.0 thing rather than trying to solve their actual problems.
Hi Bertrand,
Thanks for having your say here on this.
That’s exactly what I meant. I’m now heading to your post to read your thoughts on this. Can’t help it, but ‘driving adoption’ triggers some mental schemata related to lack of spontaneity and willingness…
Back in November, at the Enterprise 2.0 show, we brought this issue up in front of the E20 community, both in a published piece and in our speaking engagements. We released a white paper on Business Value as the primary indicator of social software success. (http://www.socialtext.com/blog/christopher-lynch/2009/11/).
While adoption is important, social software’s ability to drive new deals, generate revenue and satisfy customers is what we think about most. We honestly think this focus is not only good for our customers and us as a vendor, but this whole facet of the software industry in general.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for commenting. Sure, when you correctly say « social software’s ability to drive new deals, generate revenue and satisfy customers is what we think about most », I’m sure that’s what Susan or anyone wants too. Thing is, among others… how should we do it or what should the approach be for employees and companies -and therefore vendors, consultants, etc? company decision-takers « driving the adoption » on a given web-based or package solution for the rest of employees? or is there a ‘better’ way?
In our corporation (100,000+ people), we re clearly talking about adoption in the sense of your definition. The organization as a whole will be ‘accepting something [...] foreign to one’s nature’. Some people will embrace it. Expecting ‘happy acceptance’ in a huge enterprise almost made me laugh. Nice wish, but we are dealing with real organizations here. Starting a project based on wishful thinking will not guarantee its success.
Hi Armin, thanks for commenting,
I am not expecting happy acceptance in a huge enterprise. As a matter of fact, what you describe actually confirms what I say, ie. decision coming from top levels, and then bottom levels accepting it…while embracing it, well, that’s another issue. To me, there’s no real willpower when something is imposed, and you get the best of people when they are truly motivated. I haven’t mentioned ‘wishful thinking’ nor I think remembering people what each word actually means and implies is wishful thinking.
And – I agree that the objectives of 2.0 tools are « to drive new deals, generate revenue and satisfy customers ». However, semantics asside, in the context of 2.0, if you don’t adopt the new toolset than just how do you realize the benefits from it?
Hi Bruce,
Good question: by testing it?
Let me share a real example of top-bottom adoption vs paying attention, looking into what your employees and involved are actually demanding and or using -when not working as well. It’s not an ‘enterprise’, but a ‘university’ (for this matter it’s the same): teachers, researchers (not to mention undergrads) using YouTube to share videos on projects, lesson, you name it. Decision-makers, who have been introduced to some new cool app, deciding to set their own streaming video channel where videos can be -wow- rated, commented and embedded… for the employees, students and researchers community. Outcome? = very low participation after 2 years of ‘adoption’. Guess where the community, the action is taking place. I have the feeling this is not uncommon…
I don’t have the right answer to this problem, if I had, I’d be millionaire. I’m just going back to the basics, i.e. what we are saying when we talk, write and give speeches on this. Maybe it helps realizing that some self-assessment or meta-assessment on ‘enterprise 2.0 adoption’ might be helpful.
Sorry, but your response smacks of more semantic word games. Of course we test it (maybe even multiple « its »,) we develop and run pilots, we embrace adopters (early or otherwise), we listen to skeptics and learn from them and while we want people to embrace what we have with open arms, we would be foolish to think that a large corporation is going to change what they are doing quickly and wholeheartedly embrace bew technology, process, techniques and culture. Some individuals and groups will, some won’t. So if we believe what we are doing is going to provide business value (and continual assessment is necessary to validate this) then we help the organization to adapt and adopt – because the vision may not be immediately clear to everyone. Then we adjust our plans based on what’s working, and what’s providing value, and we test some more, and we adjust again – because no general ever executed the exact battle plan he drew up before the battle started.
Nobody who is working on implementing a change plan such as this (and that is what we are ultimately talking about) expects « happy acceptance » or ready adoption.
It appears that we are caught up in semantics and losing focus of resolving the issue at hand. Whether you call it adoption, awareness, usage or technology diffusion or nom du jour – the problem is the same. The challenge is not trivial. The reason it is Googled so much is because of the significant transition & change management that needs to occur to have it used pervasively. Let’s refocus energy back on resolving the issue. Bantering on what to call the problem offers minimal value.
Hi Laurie, thanks for commenting.
I am not sure whether you read my replies to comments here as well.
Here the discussion is not whether the change or issue is trivial. Far from it. It sounds as if tackling the issue from the language point of view is simplifying it. As if language is just a trifle… I am somewhat puzzled by the way people so usually talk ’semantic issues’ down, or just language. I guess that what Kant, Locke, Humboldt, or even Sapir-Whorf said on language and thought offers minimal value to many people. Well, not for all those people studying that at the universities, researchers, scholars…etc. So, nope, it’s not a ‘you-like-or-dont-like-this-name’ discussion.
The way we name ‘problems’ reveals the way we approach them (if you come from the ‘elearning’ world you’d understand what wrong things can go, being the ‘elearning’ term the worst mistake ever made, 15 years after it’s still a failure). More examples from ‘real life’: a man kills his wife, government A calls it ‘gender violence’, government B calls it ‘homicide’. Yeah the problem is there, why should we discuss on the way they call it? Well, don’t they trigger different things in your mental schemata? Sure they do. The way they call that ‘problem’ reveals a lot more behind. Sorry for the comparison, but for that matter it serves its purpose.
This post wasn’t intended to solve the issue, but precisely to focus on the awareness of the meaning of words. And the post is full of hedges and modal verbs, precisely to pose a question, not to assertively claim or make fun or talk derisively on anything or anyone. If you don’t like the focus of the post or think it offers minimal value, then -seems to me- it’s very easy…
I agree with you: let’s refocus energy back, yep, but let us do that from every angle. You never know.
I’m having trouble getting excited about the semantic slicing here. It’s clever to cite the dictionary definition and use it to question the use of the term « adoption, » but Susan’s cited the relevant source of the word in the corporate world, and the Adoption Life Cycle is long-established and has no pejorative connotations.
That point aside, what’s wrong with pushing/driving people to accept something that is foreign to them? Of course it’s foreign if they’ve never used it before, never thought in such ways before, never interacted in such ways before.
Why would they feel a desire to embrace yet another software system piled on their crowded corporate desktop — haven’t they lived through enough hyped-up system roll-outs to have acquired a healthy skepticism? It’s great to encounter the people in the enterprise who grasp what Enterprise 2.0 is about immediately, but they are not the majority. The majority must be shown both how to and why to use the new technology.
« Driving adoption » is just shorthand for all the things we do to get people to use the technology effectively. It’s both carrot and stick, top-down and bottom-up, broadcast and viral — whatever it takes in your particular organization and culture.
I hope people « embrace » it fully, but that’s too much to hope for at the start. Is it what we all want to see? Absolutely.
Hi Ted,
Thanks for the comment.
« but that’s too much to hope for at the start », well I hope not. How long does ‘that start’ last?
Question: can we totally refute the following statement: « XY app adoption fail because users didn’t embrace it »? So again, why not putting the focus, stress, emphasis on what employees embrace or would most likely embrace…But maybe that’s even harder.
No argument here about putting the emphasis on what employees will embrace. That’s a key aspect of any adoption strategy! In my experience with developing communities, that alone is not enough.
I was hedging when I said it’s too much to hope for people to embrace at the start. I’m not expecting the majority of our community members to truly embrace the technology for years, at least. Change is difficult for people and takes time. With time, experience and familiarity, people come to accept and hopefully embrace changes.
But I don’t for a minute believe that a it’s a failure when a community uses Enterprise 2.0 technology effectively and still has a many people that don’t go as far as « embracing » it. Using the technology effectively is my measure of success. I *want* them to readily and happily accept the technology (embrace it), but I’ve concluded that this stuff just isn’t everybody’s cup of tea — you can’t please everybody.
[...] something yours, chances are it may not work in the long run (that’s why I posed the question adopting vs embracing). And b) is there a target to work [...]
[...] know, it reminds me of the adoption vs. embracement dichotomy. It is also a common situation in community [...]