Individual 2.0

It's been great conversing with people inside and outside of EMC on this topic.  And, along the way, you get one of those big strategic insights that changes how you look at the problem.

Thanks to Julie G and others for this one ...

It's All About 2.0, Isn't It?

There's a healthy discussion about Web 2.0 -- simplified, data mashups that allow new composite applications to be built quickly and easily that blow people away.  Google Earth comes to mind, but there are literally thousands of examples out there.

But to participate in a Web 2.0 mashup, any underlying provider has to be able to expose its capabilities, and make those useful to anyone or anything that comes along with a minimum of fuss.

And therein lies an extremely useful insight.

Approaching the Enterprise 2.0 Discussion

As I went swimming in the conceptual, buzzword-laden world of Enterprise 2.0, I found myself getting battered around a bit, at least from a conceptual level. 

Transparency.  Collaboration.  Aggregation and disintermediation.  Yadda yadda yadda.

What Julie G and others convinced me is that any 2.0 concept is really built upon the underlying behavior of the elements below it.  You don't build 2.0 top down, you build it bottom up.

Hence the concept of Individual 2.0

It's All About The Individual's Behaviors

At EMC, we've got some very intelligent people who are more than willing to discuss and share information -- usually.  If you find them, and approach them in the right way, they're more than willing to open up and chat freely about what they know, what they want, etc.

In the physical world, they're great individuals.  But the interaction mechanisms are so damn cumbersome.

Lengthy meetings.  Conference calls.  Vapid emails and status reports.  Or worse, ad-hoc document repositories with stuff in them that is inherently hard to get to.

You can't get to Web 2.0 apps without providers that expose what they do in a useful, easy-to-get-to format.  And I would argue that you can't get to Enterprise 2.0 without individuals who expose what they do in a useful, easy-to-get-to format.

Now, Here's The Frustrating Part ...

Based on the hundreds of people I interact with, we're so close I can almost taste it.

All we have to do is to get people behaving online in much the same way they do in the real world.  Sounds simple, doesn't it?  But I think it's going to be hard.

Here's what I've noticed ...

• Writing is considered a chore, rather than a joy.  The simple act of expressing yourself with a keyboard, rather than a set of vocal chords (or powerpoint, for that matter) seems to be an exercise in following social conventions.
   
  I would argue that the behavior (and the social conventions) have to change for us to be successul.
   
• Interacting with people online (e.g. forums, chat, etc.) seems to be cumbersome and awkward.  The ability to join in an ongoing discussion -- which we all seem to do OK in the real world -- appears to be difficult for people.
   
• And then there's the trust thing.  This is a big one.
   
  Part of interacting with people in the physical world is getting an initial read as to whether you can trust someone or not.  If you feel you can't, you're very restrictive about what you say and do.  If you feel you can trust someone, you tend to open up a bit and expose things you wouldn't otherwise.
  
  So, how do we get people to trust each other in online communities?  Enough that they start to open up and behave like real people, rather than automated response bots?

I'd like to say I have great answers to all of these questions, but I don't.  Some of it will simply involve setting the right tone, encouraging the right behavior, and giving people time to feel comfortable with this all.

And one bad event might set us way back.

But, for me, this idea about Individual 2.0 (prewired with the behaviors, skills and motivation) is an essential conceptual building block as I think about social media, and EMC's approach to this challenge.