Can this new concept help communicate and collaborate at the office? Or will it become a victim of workplace culture?

Years ago, a concept was born. In the past three years or so, it began to slowly grow. In 2011, it gained traction. And in 2012, it’s said to be poised to take off. In fact, it is thought there will be a battle for this space by large providers. The concept is fondly called Enterprise 2.0 — and less fondly called Failure 2.0. We’re all familiar with failure, but what in heaven’s name is Enterprise 2.0? If you want to go the complex route, it’s Web 2.0 technologies applied to the workplace. If you want to keep it simple, it’s an organisation that is collaborative. The term was first used by Harvard Business School professor Andrew McAfee in 2006 and is also called Social Enterprise, Social Business and a bunch of other things — but it ultimately boils down what you can think of as collaboration on steroids. Of course, all workplaces collaborate — or think they do. What an organisation does if it embraces E2.0 is to make a special point of communicating to work together on common goals so that there is an open non-hierarchical system of employees engaging with employees to get information, knowledge, expertise and creative ideas. In a way, it’s like internal social media, though experts warn against thinking of E2.0 as the Facebook for the workplace because then you end up with a focus on the platform rather than the goal at hand. A Wikipedia fits into the definition. So does a blog. So does group messaging. But we all know how it is with some of these: they start off with much enthusiasm from employees but within a space of three months become neglected, causing senior management to frog-march someone or the other to make sure updates are done frequently. Service providers say that truly collaborative enterprise needs special tools — and they come in and install them. IBM, which has long been in this domain, has complex tools that combine content management with internal social communication for organisations. More recently, it has launched tablet apps for Enterprise 2.0. Microsoft has a suite of tools centering around its SharePoint collaboration platform, Office 360, and the software we use everyday, such as Outlook. Cisco, which has been in the collaboration space for a long time, also offers technologies to enable the adoption of communication Enterprise 2.0 style. Many smaller companies are active with such tools too. Qontext, for instance, has a Facebook-like solution that integrates externally with customer-facing solutions. The E2.0 promise is that using these tools to communicate will make an organisation more efficient, innovative and rich in talent. Imagine, for example, how much of a waste it would be if one division of an auto company devised a new solution to a problem with some vehicles. When presented, it is found that another division in another city already solved the problem. People just omitted to communicate. Think of how often someone wanted information and spent days getting it together only to find it was available a step away. Situations like these would be avoided because of proper E2.0 adoption. Collaboration could be generated or be “emergent” when a specific need arises for small groups working on a project, or be used organisation-wide for best practices, processes and HR initiatives. The logic is seductive. So why would it not work? In a word: culture. Clearly, the technology isn’t what makes an Enterprise 2.0. Unless a culture that is wholeheartedly conducive to communication is in place, it really could be Failure 2.0. We all know, for example, organisations where the top management isn’t fond of communication. They believe in a strong and silent style and don’t necessarily give internal communication much importance. There are some companies which run in an authoritarian manner and communication between controlled silos may be actively discouraged. And more commonly, there could exist a culture in which employees don’t want to share information or even ask for it. Currying favour with senior management or positioning oneself as the one and only indispensable expert on something has been part of the way employees manage others’ perceptions of themselves for years. There are many other culture and process issues to tackle before a company can go ahead and implement Enterprise 2.0 tools so that they actually work instead of just costing the company rather a lot in financial and time wasted experimentation. The size of the company also counts. Large long-time companies could have a problem changing their ways to keep pace with internal social media, especially if they have branches in far-flung places. And they’re the ones that need collaboration most. Startups could have a problem with E2.0 because their basic processes may not yet be in place — and they may not want to communicate in a totally open environment because their business is not yet wholly certain. And yet they need collaboration because the early days are the time they need great ideas. This year we’ll hear a lot more on the subject of E2.0 as companies try to get their heads around the culture vs technology clash. But one thing is for sure: the workplace needs to move out of the top-down approach that it often employs to its people. Marcel LeBrun, CEO of social business company Radian6 (now with Salesforce) has a dire warning for us: if we don’t adopt social media and Enterprise 2.0 methods and concepts, we could soon have a “CEO Spring” along the lines of the 2011 Arab revolutions.