Social networking technologies and collaborative performance in Enterprise 2.0 implementations

¶ … Social Networking Technologies on the Collaborative Performance of Organisations

Today, there are growing numbers of large-scale organizations deploying Enterprise 2.0-based solutions for their information-sharing and collaborative needs. Although these solutions share some common features, every organization's requirements are unique and the manner in which they are adopting Enterprise 2.0 solutions varies. Moreover, the maturity levels of these Enterprise 2.0 implementations vary significantly. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to synthesize secondary and primary resources to identify critical success factors and maturity levels that exist along the Enterprise 2.0 continuum, evaluating the value of their social network-based communication and collaboration in the process.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction

Statement of the Problem

Purpose of Study

Project Objectives

Background Research

Organization of the Study

Review of Related Literature

Chapter 3: Methodology, Evidence and Justification

Description of the Study Approach

Data-gathering Method and Database of Study

Chapter 4: Data Analysis

Chapter 5: Interpretation, Discussion and Implications of Findings

Effects of Social Networking Technologies on the Collaborative Performance of Organisations

Chapter 1: Introduction

There continues to be empirically derived evidence that the accumulated effects of social networking technologies on corporate performance contributes to greater levels of collaboration, communication, reduced operating costs and more efficient orchestration of complex tasks. With value chains across a diverse base of industries continually being consolidated through cost, time-to-market, global economic uncertainty and disruptive innovation, there is an urgent need for businesses who compete globally to make collaboration a core competency. The use of social network constructs, frameworks and collaborative platforms in enterprises to increase collaboration, improve communication and as a result increase performance and reduce costs was pioneered by Dr. Andrew McAfee. He defined the integration of social networks into enterprises as Enterprise 2.0, and since then this term has become a business standard (McAfee 2006). Since the origination of this concept, further studies have been completed that center on the most challenging aspect of Enterprise 2.0, and that is the attainment of successful change management programs across large-scale organizations (Kuettner, Diehl & Schubert 2013).

Today, organizations vary in their level of Enterprise 2.0 adoption, with many choosing to automate the most out-bound aspects of their business models first (McAfee 2006). This focus on externally-based integration points further makes change management difficult to achieve as there are already innate communication differences across the many, often siloed organizational, departmental, distribution and service channel organizations of large-scale enterprises rely on to operate (Kuettner et al. 2013). Given these significant differences in adoption levels predicated on enabling key members of a company's value chain external to the core business first, there are varying levels of communication and collaboration maturity evident across industries. The aggregate effect of what Dr. McAfee found from his initial studies and subsequent analysis is that in the value chains of businesses that adopted Enterprise 2.0-based approaches to managing communication had a clear experience or network effect occurring throughout their organizations (McAfee, 2006). This experience or network effect has also been characterized as varying levels of interprocess and system integration maturity as exemplified by the accuracy (measured in error reductions), speed, and cost reductions attained (Trimi & Galanxhi 2014).

Statement of the Problem

As large-scale enterprises continue to adopt and propagate Enterprise 2.0-based constructs and frameworks throughout their organizations, industries and classes of companies within them are starting to exhibit unique, differentiated characteristics. It was the intent of this analysis to isolate those companies within specific industries and track their maturity along the Enterprise 2.0 continuum, quantifying the value of social network-based communication and collaboration in the process. The contributions of using social networks to further increase communication and collaboration within Enterprise 2.0-based frameworks continues to transition from a nascent to mainstream adoption of these technologies paying a supporting role to global business performance (Trimi & Galanxhi 2014). At present, though, many organizations are reluctant to embrace Enterprise 2.0 solutions, even those that were specifically designed to support professional applications (Berk 2013). For instance, Berk (2013, p. 62) emphasizes that, "These networks are free and open to every age, from diapers to diapers. Yet [practitioners] tend to resist most of them, even those that were designed for professional, not social, use." Some companies, though, have deployed Enterprise 2.0 solutions to good effect, improving their ability to collaborate with internal customers and communicate more effectively with their external customers. In sum, the intent of this study was to isolate and examine these dynamics as described further below.

Project Objectives

As defined in Appendix A of this document in the initial objectives for the project were as follows:

1. To identify the contributions of social networks to the collaborative performance of organizations across their value chains through secondary research.

2. Through the use of secondary research, to identify the contribution of social networking technologies and enterprise 2.0-based applications at an industry level of analysis.

3. To combine the empirically derived performance results across industries to create an Enterprise 2.0-based maturity model based on the accumulated research and analysis.

Based on the inclusion of primary research, the following additional objectives have also been added:

1. Based on interviews with industry experts in the field of social collaboration and adoption of social networking technologies in enterprises, quantify the breakout levels of each layer of the maturity model.

2. Define the characteristics of fast- and slow-adopting industries of the core Enterprise 2.0 concepts and define a spectrum of their relative levels of maturity. This will be a more horizontal view across industries of Enterprise 2.0 adoption including a focus on which factors most and least contribute to success at change management strategies as well. Previous studies indicate how critical change management planning and orchestration are overall, so tracking this specific factor is critical to the success of the overall program (Kuettner et al. 2013).

Background Research

The foundational elements of Enterprise 2.0 have been in existence for decades, albeit much less automated than they are today. Further, the findings of McAfee (2006) in defining the concept of Enterprise 2.0 illustrate how the network effect, once accelerated through the use of online social networks, creates an accelerating maturity model as well. What emerges from this analysis is a greater appreciation of how social networks, regardless of their origin, all share a common trait of creating maturation curves or levels that can predictably define how and where they are most adept at spanning cooperation and simple information sharing at the low-end to full synchronization of processes and systems at the other.

The research to date also illustrates how critical change management programs and strategies are for ensuring the many ancillary parts of an Enterprise 2.0-based network stay consistent and unified with one another (Kuettner et al. 2013). The integration aspects of these networks can be attributed to the network effect evident in many organizations that are lower down on the continuum of the maturity curve of Enterprise 2.0 adoption (Trimi & Galanxhi 2014). Therefore, by isolating the network effect and its role in bringing greater maturation into enterprise networks, each specific factors that drives greater maturity can be defined. Expanding on this approach to research has shown that all successful networks share a common foundation, and the role of technologies with social networks acts as an accelerator providing trust and transparency have first been firmly established across all system boundaries (Dyer & Nobeoka 2000).

Organization of the Study

This study used a five-chapter format to achieve the above-stated project objectives. Chapter one of the study was used to introduce the issues of interest, as well as to provide a statement of the problem, the project objectives, and background research concerning Enterprise 2.0 solutions. Chapter two was used to deliver a systematic review of the relevant and peer-reviewed literature, and chapter three describes more fully the study's methodology, including a description of the study approach, the data-gathering method and the database of study consulted. Chapter four was used to provide a meta-analysis of the secondary data and a summary of the primary research and the concluding chapter interprets the research, provides a discussion of the findings and their implications for practitioners today and in the future. Finally, a critical reflection, rigor and self-evaluation section concludes the study.

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature

Chapter Introduction

This chapter provides the background and overview of the issues of interest to the study, followed by an overview of Enterprise 2.0 technologies such as networking, micro-blogging, collaboration and information-sharing and supporting social media technologies, including Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, MySpace and LinkedIn. This overview is essential to developing a full understanding of the capabilities and limitations of these technologies. Finally, a discussion concerning implementation considerations is followed by an analysis of salient monitoring and performances measures.

Background and Overview

A new and innovative Enterprise 2.0 model has emerged in recent years that incorporates a wide range of social media platforms in ways that facilitate information exchanges between all stakeholders using Enterprise 2.0 tools such as online chat features, forums, blogs, wikis, and social media networks and tools to improve products and services (Consoli 2012). Enterprise 2.0 technologies employ social media tools to help individuals within organizations identify and connect with each other in ways that promote information sharing and collaboration (Hagel & Brown 2012). In the past, Enterprise 2.0 tools were used primarily for private applications rather than the achievement of corporate goals, but today a growing number of companies are projecting their brand online using Facebook, YouTube videos and use virtual communities of mutual interest to exchange and share information with internal and external customers (Consoli 2012). Implementing and administering an effective Enterprise 2.0 model, though, can be complex and challenging unless a number of critical success factors are taken into account, and these issues form the basis of the study which is discussed further below.

As enterprises continue to experience changes to their organizational structures in response to an increasingly globalized and competitive marketplace, there has been a corresponding increase in the need for the ability of organizations to share accurate information in an efficient and timely fashion across all organizational boundaries (McAfee 2006). Although all organizations can be unwieldy affairs, this need is especially acute for medium and larger organizations with operating divisions that are separated geographically with different e-mail, accounting, and reporting systems (McAfee 2006). Consequently, developing effective knowledge-sharing practices across all organizational boundaries and silos can be an especially challenging enterprise. In this regard, Dunn and Krob (2014, p. 41) emphasize that, "Organizational silos make matters worse. Often, knowledge management teams are entrenched in operational units such as IT or customer support and rarely meet across silos."

Moreover, there is an inextricable interrelationship between the scope and depth of organizational silos with respect to their unique communications, marketing, support and strategic planning systems and employee resistance to change and innovations in communications (McAfee 2006). For example, McAfee (2006, p. 22) reports that, "Over decades, communication procedures often crowd out innovative workflows that can and do drive an organization more quickly to its goals and objectives. When procedures overtake the ability of a company to stay agile, responsive and quick to respond to its own communications needs, a myopic mindset follows." This undesirable outcome can cause a downward spiral that results in a lack of organizational goal achievement or the outright failure of the enterprise (McAfee 2006). In addition, companies that fail to fully embrace social media will be at a competitive disadvantage to their competitors that do. In this regard, McNamee (2011, p. 65) emphasizes that, "Many executives still hear only the 'social' in 'social media'- and think 'recreational time waster.' But social media has a place in the business world, and that place is much bigger than LinkedIn and extends far beyond the marketing department. From CEOs on Twitter to corporate Facebook pages, social media has decidedly grown up and gone to work."

Not surprisingly, Enterprise 2.0 has become increasingly popular among Fortune 1000 companies because of its ability to facilitate communications with internal and external customers (Greenburg 2011). Likewise, engaging in social media has been shown to strengthen the brand experience which supports brand building (Edosomwan et al. 2011). In those cases where there is a solid brand name, businesses are far more likely to attract customers as well as become more attractive to current and potential employees in the future and the research to date confirms that social media can help build such a solid reputation (Edosomwan et al. 2011). In sum, Enterprise 2.0 and social media represent the current state-of-the-art tools for collaborative innovation in nimble organizations, and companies that apply these tools effectively stand to gain a competitive advantage over those that do not. An overview of these technologies follows below.

Overview of Social Media

The term "social media" generally refers to platforms such as Facebook or Twitter, but it also includes other Enterprise 2.0 tools as well. For instance, Sawyer (2011, p. 65) reports that, "For most of us, social media means Facebook, Twitter, and maybe LinkedIn. But social media extends far beyond the Facebook profile to include wikis, blogs, sites for sharing pictures or bookmarks, and a host of other focused applications." Social media users not only consume and interact with content, they also generate it through collaborative efforts including information sharing and organizing based on peer-to-peer feedback (Sawyer 2011). This point is also made by McKay (2008) who notes that employees are now engaging Enterprise 2.0 tools beyond those of blogs and wikis, and focusing more on social media with increased conversation on sites and platforms such as Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn. Furthermore, many employees are increasingly using social networks on the consumer level in their personal lives, placing additional pressure on organizations to implement social media applications (McKay 2008). It is important to note that social media more than just a collection of innovative technological tools, rather it is "a revolution in the role that technology plays in our lives and in the way we think both about technology and about the world around us" (Sawyer 2011). Moreover, according to Sawyer (2011, p. 66), "[Social media] is not another way to use the Internet, but an entirely new kind of network, with its own version number: Web 2.0. And it's not another communication medium or document-sharing tool or knowledge management system." Indeed, McAfee (2006, p. 23) maintains that social media technologies are important "because they can potentially knit together an enterprise and facilitate knowledge work in ways that were simply not possible previously" and make it possible for organizations to "make visible the practices and outputs of their knowledge workers" and to share those practices and outputs in ways that have never been available before."

On the one hand, social media can be regarded as a business strategy and a broadcasting platform while social networking can be viewed as being a tool and a utility for facilitating interpersonal contacts (Edosomwan et al. 2011). The difference between the two is not just related to terminology but to the functions and features used in online offerings by Web site developers that determine how they are used and there are a number of fundamental differences between social media and social networks (Edosomwan et al. 2011). The first salient difference concerns the definition: "Social media is still a media which is primarily used to transmit or share information with a broad audience, while social networking is an act of engagement as people with common interests associate together and build relationships through community" (Edosomwan et al. 2011, p. 37). Another difference is the style of communication that is used. In this regard, Edosomwan and his associates (2011, p. 37) note that, "Indeed, social media is simply a system, a communication channel; it is not a location that you visit. In contrast, social networking is a two-way communication, where conversations are at the core, and through which relationships are developed."

An overview of the most popular social media sites at present and their typical Enterprise 2.0 applications are provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Overview of the Most Popular Current Social Media Sites

Social Media Site

Description

Typical Application(s)

Facebook

Facebook is a social networking website launched in February 2004, and it is privately operated by Facebook, Inc. Facebook was founded by Mark Zuckerberg and others when he was a student at Harvard; though when the site was initially launched, it was restricted to Harvard students only. Later the privilege was extended to high school students and later to everyone 13 years or older. As of July 2010, Facebook has more than 500 million active users. In January 2009, Facebook was ranked as the most used social network worldwide. In addition, in May 2010, Google also announced that more people visited Facebook than any other website in the world based on findings from 1,000 sites across the world. With Facebook, users can create personal profiles; add other users as friends, and exchange messages, including automatic notifications, photos and comments when they update their profile. Additionally, Facebook users may join common interest user groups, organized by workplace, school, college, or other characteristics. Facebook allows anyone 13 years old and older to become a registered user of the website. On a daily basis, traffic to Facebook network is on the rise. Facebook also became the top social network across eight individual markets in Asia - the Philippines, Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Vietnam. On October 24, 2007, Microsoft announced that it had purchased a 1 .6% share of Facebook for $240 million, giving Facebook a total implied value of around $15 billion. Microsoft's purchase included rights to place international ads on Facebook; other companies have equally followed suit. For example, just during the 2010 FIFA football world cup, Nike did an ad with Facebook, and within minutes, an average of 8 million viewers had registered with Facebook

Networking, interfacing with customers, photograph and video sharing, personal status updates, communities of mutual interest

YouTube

Founded in 2005, YouTube is the world's most popular online video community where millions of people discover, watch and share originally created videos. YouTube provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a major distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers, large and small. YouTube is based in San Bruno, California and uses Adobe Flash Video technology to display a wide variety of user-generated video content, including movie clips, TV clips, and music videos, as well as amateur content such as video blogging and short original videos. In November 2006, within a year of its launch, YouTube was purchased by Google Inc. In one of the most talked about acquisitions to date. YouTube has entered into a number of partnership relations with content providers such as CBS, BBC, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Group, Warner Music Group, NBA, The Sundance Channel and many others. YouTube offered the public a beta site of the site in May 2005, six months before the official launch in November 2005. The site grew rapidly, and in July 2006, the company announced that more than 65,000 new videos were being uploaded every day, and that the site was receiving 100 million video views per day

Video sharing (product demonstrations, how-to explanations, entertainment)

Twitter

In 2006, Twitter came into existence and gained much popularity at first because it offered more different options such as micro blogging and second because it was used by some celebrities. Launched in 2006, Twitter gained most of its popularity as a micro-blogging tool in 2009, when it reached 58.5million users world-wide, a 949% increase since September 2008 (Schonfeld 2009). The specificity of Twitter lies in its messages--tweets -- that can have maximum 140 characters, with the default setting public, which means that the essence of events can be transmitted on a large scale across the network, instantaneously (Jansen et al. 2009). This made Twitter's owner, practitioners and the few researchers in the field to define Twitter as "an information company" (Bulearca & Bulearca 2010, p. 297). Twitter is a versatile tool, used for socio-political campaigns, citizen journalism and increasingly for marketing purposes, with companies like Dell reporting to have gained 1.9million [pounds sterling] from sales and cost savings via Twitter (Campaign 2009; Davidson 2009). Practitioners also predict that Twitter will play a major part in the 2010 social commerce phenomenon that could significantly affect business models online (Marsden 2010). Nevertheless, there are numerous open questions and controversies related to Twitter's actual business potential (Dorbian 2010), especially due to little research (Zhao & Rossen 2009)l Return on Investment (ROI) measurement issues (Fisher, 2009) and a lack of strategic understanding and planning (Gunning 2009); there are even critics questioning Twitter's actual future. Furthermore, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) seem to have a more acute dilemma, since the lack of necessary resources, people and time have prevented most of them to experiment with Twitter (Moran 2010). Out of all social media platforms, Twitter is one of the most controversial and outstanding networks, seeing praise for its spectacular 2008-2009 949% increase (Schonfeld 2009) and for its enormous untapped potential, especially in the electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) and social commerce arenas (Jansen et al. 2009; Zhao & Rossen 2009; Marsden 2010). Nevertheless, the model has also been questioned in terms of its future (The Economist 2010), and its business suitability (Dorbian 2010), with critics accusing the difficulty to understand Twitter and to measure results (Fisher 2009). The literature review completed in the previous part of the present research also concluded a severe lack of studies to explore the overall viability of Twitter for business purposes (Jansen et al. 2009) from companies' perspectives, especially small and medium-sized companies (Bulearca & Bulearca 2010).

Live sharing, micro-blogging (severe space restrictions), personal status updates

MySpace

MySpace is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California, where it shares a building with its owner, News Corporation. In 2006, MySpace became the most popular social networking website in the United States but was overtaken in 2008 by its competitor Facebook which became the most popular social networking site worldwide. Approximately 43.2 million users visit MySpace on a monthly basis. The company employs approximately 1,000 employees. A unique feature of MySpace is the ability for users to customize their profile information to give detailed information about themselves and what they are interested in. MySpace also has a special profile for musical artists were they can download their entire music into mp3 songs.

Networking, file sharing

LinkedIn

Linkedln is a source used by recruiters, and about 80% of companies use it for the recruiting process. Premium accounts include features such as the ability to see who has viewed the owner's profile, send messages to others with whom users are not connected, save profiles to folders, and have premium search filters and automated search alerts (Ford & Lim 2011). A range of premium accounts exists for business owners, recruiters and job seekers. Four premium account levels exist for businesses and recruiters with monthly prices of $24.95, $49.95, $99.95 and $499.95. Each level has increased features (Ford & Lim 2011). Two users connect when one sends an invitation to the other and the other accepts. LinkedIn will suggest potential connections to invite based on your profile information. For example, using your employment history, LinkedIn lists other members who worked for the same company at the same time. Similarly, LinkedIn finds classmates from your alma mater and/or colleges attended. Additionally, users can import their address book from an Internet-based e-mail account or an Outlook contacts file, manually input e-mail addresses, or use the search feature to find users they know. If contacts are not already members, a feature allows users to invite them to join. Connections that have accepted are considered first-degree connections (Ford & Lim 2011). Users can also create their own custom networks (Berk 2013).

Corporate recruitment, networking, information sharing

Quora

This site was founded by former Facebook Inc. employees in April 2009 and provides a more structured online discussion platform that can be used for customer service applications (Quittner 2011). Quora is essential an online question-and-answer forum (Quittner 2011). The unique quality of Quora is that customers can reasonably expect answers from qualified experts in their respective areas of expertise (Quittner 2011).

Networking, information sharing

Plaxo

This site provides users with the ability to store all of their address book information online. In 2013, Plaxo had already amassed more than 20 million members (Berk 2013).

Information sharing, networking, communities of mutual interest

Viadeo

Primarily used for corporate recruiting and employment purposes, this site also provides online educational resources to improve job prospects. At present, this site has more than 65 million members worldwide (About Viadeo 2015).

Corporate recruiting, information sharing, education

XING

This site focuses on corporate recruiting and posting employment opportunities worldwide. By 2013, XING had more than 10 million members (Berk 2013).

Corporate recruiting, information sharing,

Source: Adapted from Edosomwan et al. 2011, p. 80 unless otherwise indicated

The specific applications for different types of social media platforms including those described above can be discerned from the graphic presented in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3. Seven types of social media platforms and their primary applications

Source: http://laurierentrepreneur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Types-of-Social-Platforms1.png

Depending on the unique needs of the organization, the respective maturity levels for applying these seven different types of social media platforms are set forth in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Respective Applications for Different Types of Social Media Platforms

Application

Description

Written/Visual Publishing

Blogs, white papers, eBooks, and presentations are all common forms on written publishing. Publishing content that is relevant to the audience is key to developing engagement, building awareness, and establishing a knowledgeable presence in an industry.

Live Sharing

This includes any type of audio or visual sharing that is consumed by the audience at the same time as production.

Video Sharing

This category has received a lot of attention recently due to the rise of Vine and Instagram video. Content shared on these platforms are purely video -- from stop motion to animation and home videos to multi-million dollar commercials.

Image Sharing

Many customers are more likely to engage with brands if they post pictures than any other media.

Collaboration

One of the rising trends and a key component of Web 2.0 is online collaboration. For businesses, this can be a great way to engage users, encourage them to be part of the conversation, and even gain valuable insights or feedback from the targeted market.

Micro-Blogging

Micro-blogs involve users exchanging small or short posts, shorter than a typical blog. These can include text, images, or video. Status updates, link previews, and sayings are most common on these platforms. Due to the character restrictions, they are unsuitable for lengthy discussions and debates.

Networking

These sites are often the most well recognized or easily thought of. They general involve interactions between users who know each other on some level. While businesses can certainly prosper on these sites, they can be difficult because users are looking to connect with those they know.

Source: Adapted from MacMaster 2014

Not surprisingly, the amount of time required to maintain various social media pages at different levels of development can be discerned from Figure 4 below.

Figure 4. Evolution of social media platforms and time required for administration

Source: https://drgyahoo.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/momma-work.jpg

In sum, social media facilitates individual interactions be allowing them to reach a much broader audience through leveraging the "long tail" concept (i.e., conversations can be conveyed to different forums) (Edosomwan et al. 2011). There are a number of different communication channels in business settings, including telephonic exchanges, meetings, and emails that all have their respective advantages and disadvantages (Edosomwan et al. 2011). For instance, people may forget to write down messages during telephonic exchanges or important notes in meetings, or finding a specific email among hundreds or thousands can be difficult (Edosomwan et al. 2011). The use of social media networks, though, can help overcome some of these disadvantages and improve the communications channels in organizations of all sizes and types. As Edosomwan and his associates point out (2011, p. 37), "Now people need not waste their time as it has become easy for a person to send messages through an instant messenger or a tweet and get the response really quick. Social media has also improved collaboration between team members in an organization, which has resulted in a better outcome."

These are especially important issues in organizations in which individuals are encouraged to work as part of a team because of the expanded flexibility afforded by social media tools and the ability to share information in real time, making this alternative a major addition to an organization's IT resources. By allowing people to create and share their ideas and concepts, the overall effectiveness of the team is increased and the contributions of each individual are enhanced (Edosomwan et al. 2011). In some cases, employees will already be expert with these systems and can help their organizations achieve improved outcomes and improved performance levels. For instance, Edosomwan et al. (2011, p. 38) add that, "Companies must allow their employees to leverage their networks if they have a well-built social profile. This will result in professional gains as these social media will enable collaborating without leaders in their respective industries." In addition, allowing employees to leverage networks can also assist employees in remaining current with the most recent developments in their industry and maintain awareness of what their competitors are doing to achieve a competitive advantage (Edosomwan et al. 2011).

In sum, social media forums act as powerful ways to communicate the brand value and brand attribute as they facilitate open forms of communication and information sharing. Although social media can be used in a wide array of situations, the technology is best suited for the following:

Promoting open communication between employees and management.

Enabling employees to share project ideas and work in teams effectively, which helps in sharing knowledge and experiences.

Promoting better content, such as Web cast and videos, than just simple text.

Helping to communicate collaboratively between current and potential customers, in receiving feedback, product definition, product development, or any forms of customer service and support.

Encouraging members, or part of the company's employees, to become members of a well-recognized community.

Serving as a good venue for discussions and becomes a classic goal of marketing and communications, but the companies must ensure that the employees are adhering to the rules and etiquettes of social media (Edosomwan et al. 2011).

Vendors and market analysts concur that the explosive increase in the use of social media and Enterprise 2.0 technologies is due to a corresponding increase in consumer demands (McKay 2008). Moreover, although the future of so-called "social customer relationship management" remains uncertain, many industry analysts agree that Enterprise 2.0 has a brighter outlook, at least for the foreseeable future. In this regard, McKay (2008, p. 15) advises that, "This is evident in solutions such as Faceforce, which puts Salesforce.com data side-by-side with Facebook profiles of customers, and that of Sales Social, a collaborative mashup from Kapow Technologies and Wavemaker that presents LinkedIn, Facebook, Salesforce.com, and Technorati customer data in one place." In sum, Enterprise 2.0 technologies that leverage the capabilities of social media tools can provide a significant return on the investment of time and other organizational resources provided the implementation is performed properly, and these issues are discussed further below.

Implementation Considerations

Successful implementation of a fully collaborative and interactive Enterprise 2.0 system requires some certain prerequisite conditions within the organization (Consoli 2013). For instance, there is a need for internal employees to mutually collaborate in order to facilitate communications with external entities is needed to attain organizational goals (Consoli 2013). Although implementations will vary depending the organizational setting, the criticality of the implementation process cannot be overstated and appropriate implementation strategies must be developed and followed in order to achieve optimal outcomes (Consoli 2013).

The conceptual design framework for Enterprise 2.0 implementations are evidence-based and generally follow a series of steps (Consoli 2013). According to Consoli (2013, p. 37), "The first important step of the model requires the involvement of top management (owner/manager) and, subsequently, the active participation of internal human resources." The data used by the Enterprise 2.0 system is maintained in an integrated data warehouse that contains data that is used by collaborative systems as well as being maintained by the organization's information services department (Consoli 2013).

Consequently, the data used in Enterprise 2.0 systems is structured as well as unstructured, but all components of the system read and save data to this integrated data warehouse (Consoli 2013). Therefore, the following phases must be taken into account during the selection and adoption of the collaborative Enterprise 2.0 platform:

Analysis and benchmarking. Comparison with market solutions mainly on the usability, accessibility and efficiency;

Development. Selecting the infrastructure (Service as a Service, Cloud Computing, etc.) and the collaborative platform. Assigning a specific role to human resources. Designing security policies;

Integration. Integrating applications of Information System with contents of web channels;

Deployment. Delivery and launch of the platform involving and motivating the internal staff;

Adoption. Showing the best practices and guidelines. Activating training sessions for the support in the use of the platform.

Implementing the change, starting in a business area, with motivated groups, and experimenting, with a soft interactive and collaborative approach, individual corporate activities. Leaving out of the project people who are not motivated. The change should be encouraged with a leadership that transmits motivation, sense of direction and widespread involvement that generates social dynamics and mutual encouragement.

At this point, it is also important to take into account the following principles:

Transparency and accessibility of information: people must have access to relevant information and the communication must flow openly without restriction (where there are not objective requirements of confidentiality);

Mutual influence and social control: individual initiatives and innovative practices inside and outside of the company should be made visible in order to trigger positive processes of reuse; and,

Rewarding people who implement this process of change (Consoli 2013, p. 38).

Assuming the foregoing steps have been complete, the next step is for the change manager to align organizational efforts using the Enterprise 2.0 system with the achievement of organizational goals (Consoli 2013). This process may require a reconfiguration of existing interfaces between business areas as well as new methods that allow data to be shared (Consoli 2013). The final step in the implementation of Enterprise 2.0 initiatives is to establish quantifiable monitors and evaluate progress as discussed below.

Monitoring and Performances Measures

The final step in the implementation of the Enterprise 2.0 model is to establish quantifiable measures that can be aggregated and trended to evaluate progress against established goals and benchmarks (Consoli 2013). Establishing quantifiable monitors is important in order to avoid subjective assessments of progress. In this regard, Consoli (2013, p. 38) concludes that, "The monitoring of performances of an interactive and collaborative model is not easy, especially in the case in which there are intangible results like those associated to an Enterprise 2.0 which are based on theoretical concepts such as collaboration, interactivity and communication." Therefore, many organizations employ monitors that can be more easily quantified such as customer satisfaction levels, sales, the number of innovative ideas created and so forth (Consoli 2013). Again, although every organization is unique in some fashion and their implementation and administration of an Enterprise 2.0 initiative will differ in some ways, the following factors should be taken into account in the monitoring phase:

The rules and policies to follow in the implementation model,

The adoption of Web 2.0 tools,

The motivation,

The simplicity of the use of technological tools,

The exchange of information,

The quality of exchanged information,

The support to the implementation, and The results achieved/expected (Consoli 2013, p. 38).

These measures should be applied and reviewed frequently during the early stages of an Enterprise 2.0 implementation to ensure the project is on track and opportunities for improvement and the need for management interventions are identified. During the start-up phase it is necessary to establish a continuous monitoring mechanism and an execution of specific corrections to lead the enterprise in a full collaborative environment (Consoli 2013). Over time, periodic progress reports should also be provided to the change manager (Consoli 2013). Finally, Consoli (2013, p. 38) adds that, "It is important also update guidelines on results achieved, make improvements and restart the execution of the project 2.0. These steps are repeated until the development of the model of Enterprise 2.0 is completed."

Chapter 3: Methodology, Evidence and Justification

Methodology

The methodology was mixed and involved a thorough secondary literature review of Enterprise 2.0 -- based studies of organizations across a wide range of industries so that a solid foundation for the study's analysis could be created. In addition, a meta-analysis of key findings from relevant studies was also provided in chapter four that follows. Likewise, primary data in the form of telephonic interviews with industry experts were also collected using a digital recording device. The use of both secondary and primary data is highly consistent with the guidance provided by Dennis and Harris (2002, p. 39) who report, "Primary data are information that is being collected for the first time in order to address a specific research problem. This means that it is likely to be directly relevant to the research, unlike secondary data, which may be out of date or collected for a totally different purpose. Ideally, an effective research project should incorporate both primary and secondary data." In addition, this approach is also congruent with the guidance provided by Kuettner et al. (2013, p. 323) who advise, "Industry experts can provide critical insight, as they are able to report on a multitude of cases they encounter in their work and can compare individual case findings with industry trends." The primary data were transcribed using Dictaphone-type equipment and the results presented in a narrative fashion according to the major themes that were identified (Klandermans & Staggenborg 2002). All interviewees were consented prior to conducting the telephonic interviews using the informed consent form shown at Appendix B.

The goal of the mixed methodology was to find and thoroughly analyze empirical studies that measure the impact of enterprise 2.0-based technologies and social network platforms on the operational and financial performance of organizations. The methodology also evaluated the performance of the progression of collaboration and communication systems previous to Enterprise 2.0, which marginally met the needs of companies prior to the development of social media platforms (McAfee 2006). Industry-specific data regarding the performance of Enterprise 2.0 implementations in specific vertical industries will also be studied. All of these efforts taken together resulted in an Enterprise 2.0 Maturity Model being created based on the total research effort.

Evidence and Justification

The evidence required to developed informed and timely answers to the study's guiding research questions included access to academic databases, e-mail and a cell phone or landline telephone to support additional inquires to the library when required. There was also the need for access to a laptop and printer to complete the research study. Additional resources required to complete the study included access to the educational programs from leading research firms including Aberdeen Research, Forrester, Gartner, IDC and others who have studied the impact of Enterprise 2.0 on corporate performance. As these firms have long-established programs supporting the academic community, there is very low probability that they will end anytime soon. Each of these research firms also have specific university pricing schedules to allow for their websites to be accessed through university libraries. Finally, reliable online academic research databases such as EBSCOHost and Questia were consulted.

Chapter 4: Data Analysis

Chapter Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the meta-analysis of key findings of Enterprise 2.0 studies in Table 3 in part one below. This approach is consistent with the guidance provided by Noblet and Hare (1988, p. 9) who advise a qualitative meta-analysis allows researchers to "compare and analyze text, creating new interpretations in the process." Finally, a summary of the results of interviews with industry experts in the field of Enterprise 2.0 technologies in part two that follows.

Part One: Meta-Analysis of Key Enterprise 2.0 and Related Technologies

Table 3

Source, Key Findings and Comments concerning Enterprise 2.0 and Related Technologies

Source

Key Findings

Comments

McNamee 2013, p. 66

A network of contacts and discussion and inspiration underlay even the most startling discoveries. Innovation emerges from collaboration, not solitary effort. An innovation culture and structured genius groups can produce breakthrough innovation. In organizations, those genius groups may well emerge from networks that form spontaneously. The real work of an organization likely occurs not through the formal hierarchical structure but via informal social networks through which people share knowledge.

It is easy to imagine how these informal networks could form via Twitter, Facebook, or an internal social media platform. And it's almost as easy to imagine that a well-designed, carefully deployed platform could become the venue for an evolving, shifting set of genius groups-some of them forming spontaneously around shared interests or compelling ideas-that produce a stream of breakthrough innovations.

Borg 2013

Enterprise Social Collaboration (ESC) uses social media and Next-Generation Communications technologies (integrated voice, mobile, video, instant messaging / chat, and presence ) to foster increased teamwork and knowledge sharing for the purpose of improving business outcomes.

Companies that identify social business collaboration as their top business goal experience significant business performance improvements.

Hugi 2010, pp. 2-3

The success of introducing Enterprise 2.0 depends on the interplay between the organization's culture and the use of the tools in question. Enterprise 2.0 is therefore not a situation but a development that, due to an evolutionary change in organisations and tools, will find its way into every company sooner or later. The driver behind the Enterprise 2.0 technologies continues to be Web 2.0. According to the study, employees of the 'digital natives' generation have grown up with the internet and learned communication behaviour and the use of the tools outside of the company.

Due to the strong penetration of information technology into their private sphere, they have developed expectations with regard to the user-friendliness and range of functions of an Enterprise 2.0 tool. These expectations have an influence on the acceptance of collaboration platforms and at the same time facilitate the introduction of Enterprise 2.0-type solutions. While the E-Mail Client may have been the only collaboration tool used a few years ago, today's intranets offer significantly more interaction opportunities. Staff become information producers in wikis, and communicate via comment functions, blogs and content ratings.

McNamee & Shoch 2010, p. 56

Managers starting out with Enterprise 2.0 technologies are frequently influenced by traditional repository-based KM perspectives. As a result, companies in the beginning phases with Enterprise 2.0 tend to focus on components that look like electronic repositories, such as wikis and forums, while overlooking others that can have a far greater impact, such as Facebook-style social networking profiles, rating and reputation systems, or blogs and microblogs. Backing up to think about the fundamentals of collaboration helps highlight why various features and subsystems are so important to the success of Enterprise 2.0 in managing and enabling knowledge sharing and knowledge building in organizations. Many organizations prioritize various features and subsystems that resemble repositories at the expense of others that are potentially more important for Enterprise 2.0 success.

In order to appreciate the full value of Enterprise 2.0 and avoid suboptimal configurations that can lead to false starts, lackluster performance, or utter failure, managers must shift their thinking about how organizations can manage knowledge effectively.

Harris 2009, p. 112

Wikis were invented to foster rapid collaboration with a minimum learning curve. Using two buttons -- Save and Edit -- they allow members of a group to take turns editing a web page and saving it for the next team member's contribution.

Wiki software is available from a number of vendors, often bundled with other Enterprise software.

Greenberg 2011, p. 41

Social business is comprised of a series of design principles, techniques, and technologies that create, extend, and enable individuals to engage, transact with, and influence each other through social media interface. [Social] business [is one] that embraces networks of people to create business value. ... Social businesses more fully integrate the collective knowledge of people-centric networks to accelerate decision-making, strengthen business processes, and increase innovation that matters. Enterprise 2.0 is the core element of a social business. Enterprise 2.0 revolves around internal collaboration; it is a platform that provides the workforce with the means to share information in ways that enhance the overall effectiveness of the company as well as the productivity of each employee.

The employees take part as much as they care to. Social business is not just the combination and interaction among the elements but it is also the empowering of employees to deal with customers and the empowering of customers to determine their own relationship with a company.

McKay 2008, p. 15

Trampoline Systems' recent release of Sonar Dashboard, an entire social-computing platform created for enterprises. Sonar Dashboard is similar to Facebook only in that it allows users to connect with other users; however, Dashboard is designed specifically for the enterprise, allowing employees to create individual profiles as well as share information regarding work projects, contacts, and interests. User information is dynamically generated, providing real-time data for sharing.

The Dashboard product also maps out relationships among employees in the enterprise, adding visualization to complicated, complex, and growing companies. (Oracle introduced similar enterprise social computing capabilities with the release of its CRM On Demand 15.)

Consoli 2013, p. 37

Enterprise 2.0 tools can facilitate two-way communications with customers, allowing them to express opinions/suggestions on products / services to improve them. In this way, a bi-directional channel between enterprises and customers is established and the customer can actively participate in the exchange of useful information. Customer opinions constitute a gold mine for generating high value added and for making strategic decisions. In the Enterprise 2.0, the customer is a central figure and he/she is involved in all processes: conception, design, development, test, marketing, buying and so on. A customer more involved in the production process helps the company to find and eliminate errors/defects for improving the final product/service. The Enterprise 2.0 model can be interpreted as a new way of doing business, a participative business where the company and customers work together (co-operate, co- create, co-produce...) to improve the final product/service.

Collaboration between companies and customers, in a context of co-creation and co- production, encourages the realization of the figure of the prosumer (producer and consumer at the same time). The consumer is becoming a co-creator of value while in the past he/she was a passive responder to the supply chain.

Altamimi 2013, p. 16

There are a number of characteristics that are presumably the drivers behind the popularity of social software. The most important of these include, sharing, interacting, knowledge sharing is voluntary, ease of use, support for social networks, user-generated content, enforcing much less sense of hierarchy than in the real world so anyone can provide feedback or comments to anyone else and one person can be at the same time part of several networks, and establishing of weak ties, which refer to acquaintances with less social involvement, more superficial and on a smaller, less intimate basis.

Another essential characteristic that has been referred to recently in the literature is what is called "Nutzungsoffenheit," which implies that it is hard to predict how a platform will be appropriated and whereby, technology and its set of features do not precipitate its forms of usage.

Philip 2010, p. 4

The maturity levels have been created with the intention of aiding the better understanding the position / success of Enterprise 2.0, its adoption and use today. Most companies are yet to develop their Enterprise 2.0 technology and reach the level the top companies. Companies have been assessed based on the primary fields of Unified Communication and Collaboration, Enterprise Content Management and Social Network & Community.

The importance and demand of tools have been identified on the basis of primary sets of tools such as Unified Communication, Live Collaboration, Rating & Folksonomy, Forum, Blog & Microblogging, Podcasting & Video sharing, Project Centric Collaboration and Wiki. The ability of each tool to generate competitive differential can be better understood by crossing the beneficial impact with the spread and maturity of use, this makes it possible to cluster the groups of tools as 'Must haves', 'Differentiating', 'Question mark' and 'Marginal'.

Pontefract 2011, p. 57

Many social media and thus Enterprise 2.0 opportunities inside of a company have translated into a new term: social learning. Social learning can be thought of as the use of Enterprise 2.0 opportunities and technologies to help facilitate the learning experience of employees. Blogs, wikis, microblogging, YouTube-like video sharing, tagging, ranking, virtual worlds, discussion forums, and generally any other form of user-generated content (for learning, communication, and marketing) are both practical and engaging ways to complement the learning strategy of any organization.

Ultimately, learning organizations will effectively evolve if they consider including new social learning strategies. Formal learning will always remain a very important piece of the modality puzzle; however, social learning is fast becoming a true partner in the learning continuum. In fact, Gartner predicts that by 2014, social learning-like services will actually replace email as the primary communications vehicle for at least 20% of the workforce. Clearly, change is upon us all. Therefore, if planned correctly, social learning can not only help with the points of practicality and engagement, it can also assist training budget problems.

Bingham & Connor 2010, p. 37

Social learning is what it sounds like -- learning with and from others. It has been around for a long time and naturally occurs at conferences, in groups, and among old friends in a cafe as easily as it does in classroom exercises or among colleagues online who have never met in person. People experience social learning when they go down the hall to ask a question and when they post that same question on Twitter in anticipation that someone will respond. While social media is technology used to engage three or more people and social learning is participating with others to make sense of new ideas, what is new is how powerfully they work together.

Social tools leave a digital audit trail, documenting the learning journey -- often an unfolding story -- and leaving a path for others to follow

Part Two: Results of Interviews with Industry Experts

The Enterprise 2.0 industry experts selected to participate in this study shared some common attributes, including: (1) working in a professional capacity in the field of Enterprise 2.0 technologies, (2) having a thorough understanding of IT initiatives besides Enterprise 2.0, and (3) possessing several years of experience in the IT industry. These shared attributes provided a well-rounded perspective concerning the issues of interest to this study. Following a reiteration of each interview question, summarized representative responses are provided, edited only for clarity and brevity. These results were synthesized with the findings that emerged from the review of the secondary data in the concluding chapter that follows.

In response to the question, "What factor is the most important to ensuring the success of Enterprise 2.0 initiatives?," all of the interviewees agreed that top management support was an essential element, varying only in terminology and degree. Representative of the comments received in response to this question were the following:

1. Many of my associates have reported more successful outcomes when executives are seen actually using Enterprise 2.0 technologies.

2. Without question, Enterprise 2.0 initiatives that don't have top management support are doomed from the outset.

3. Far too many organizations elect to implement Enterprise 2.0 solutions without fully understanding what they are capable of, why they are required or what changes will be needed.

4. It is helpful to have a top manager as a champion for all Enterprise 2.0 projects.

5. These initiatives require sustained, top-down support -- management support that includes the allocation of sufficient organizational resources and this means talented people, time and money. In other words, half measures will just not be effective.

6. It is easy to forget about data security when making the transition to Enterprise 2.0 but this is a critical area that can't be overlooked.

7. There can be a lot of loose ends that can cause problems if someone isn't made accountable for the details.

8. Be careful in selecting members for the implementation team. Some people don't have the background or knowledge and others may be opposed to the change. It's like lawyers choosing the best jury for their clients' interests.

These findings are consistent with the results of the Kuettner et al. (2013) that determined top management commitment was critical for successful Enterprise 2.0 implementations. For instance, Kuettner et al. (2013, p. 333) report that, "The role of top management is distinctive in Enterprise 2.0 initiatives [and] visibly using the new technologies is seen as an important factor for management to demonstrate credibility and to in-spire an organization's adoption." The findings of the Kuettner et al. (2013) study also confirmed the need for sustained, top-down management support for successful Enterprise 2.0 implementations.

The interview question, "Which factors most and least contribute to success at change management strategies for Enterprise 2.0 implementations?" resulted in a more mixed set of responses, with some interviewees maintaining that overcoming the resistance to change is among the most important factors while others viewed training as being a major contributing factor to successful Enterprise 2.0 implementations. Representative of the responses received for this question are the following:

1. It is important to remain flexible in administering Enterprise 2.0 projects because there will always be different levels of uptake among stakeholders, and some people, especially some executives, will always take longer and some will even be "hold-outs" that require special attention..

2. Achieving user "buy-in" is essential if companies expect people to make major changes in their day-to-day operations. People are scared of change and will fight it if they don't understand why it is important.

3. Nothing else matters if the data you're using isn't current and accurate, but that's one of the strengths of E2.0 technologies if they are used properly.

4. We've had mixed results with outsourced training. In some cases, it's easier and cheaper to provide inservice training for anyone who may need it, but we're finding most people are already familiar and even expert with these systems and are eager to use them on the job.

5. One essential feature of successful transitions to Enterprise 2.0 is to make sure the implementation team fully appreciates the complexities of the supporting business systems and what data is needed to perform cross-platform transactions.

6. Identifying change requirements early on is an important part of ensuring successful Enterprise 2.0 projects. It costs a great deal more to make changes after a project has been implemented.

7. It never hurts to provide some redundancies and back-up when these systems are implemented because things can and do go wrong all of the time.

8. Assigning a manager to each social media site is essential to monitor customer feedback and respond to negative comments.

These observations were largely congruent with the findings that emerged from the Kuettner et al. (2013) study wherein practitioner noted that uptake levels among executives may vary widely, and it is unreasonable to expect people to change the way they have done business for years, perhaps even decades, overnight. Nevertheless, the interviewees agreed that maintaining momentum was important and hold-outs must be persuaded, regardless of their position, to embrace the new technologies. These findings are also consistent with the results of the Kuettner et al. (2013, p. 335) study that determined, "Nobody cuts email off overnight" [but] sometimes it would be better to get people out of their comfort zone."

In response to the interview question, "What are the characteristics of fast- and slow-adopting industries of the core Enterprise 2.0 concepts and define a spectrum of their relative levels of maturity," there was a general consensus among the interviewees that fast-adopting industries were characterized by significant levels of experience with social media networks and had substantial in-house expertise in developing these technologies. There was also a general theme of having a willingness to take risks among fast-adopting industries that was notably absent from slow-adopting industries that elected to take a "wait-and-see" approach to Enterprise 2.0 systems. Some salient comments from the interviewees in this regard include the following observations:

1. Some slow-adopting companies don't mean to be, they just don't provide sufficient staffing resources to accomplish what they have set out to achieve.

2. Companies with a lot of e-commerce experience under their belts will have more to consider, but they will also have far more to gain through fast-adoption approaches if they follow the best practices that have been developed.

3. I think many businesses are moving as fast as they can without thinking about whether they are fast or slow adopters.

4. Fast-adopting industries are mainly in major retail, but I've seen some impressive results from smaller companies that have used these tools to their best effect.

Chapter 5: Interpretation, Discussion and Implications of Findings

Interpretation

Notwithstanding the seamless nature of Enterprise 2.0 technologies, these innovations must be viewed as an interim technology only and it is reasonable to suggest that the "next big thing" will provide even more powerful solutions, perhaps in the foreseeable future. Indeed, the history of the evolution of communications technologies demonstrates a clear linear progression from primitive approaches such as signal fires and drums to increasingly sophisticated means such as the telegraph, telephone, facsimile machines, pagers and the Internet. Early adopters of the telegraph, for instance, likely viewed smoke signals as obsolete and even laughable, and practitioners in the middle and late 21st century will likely view Enterprise 2.0 technologies in the same way -- as primitive and obsolete tools that were useful during their time but which are no longer relevant. Given the current pace of innovation and change, it is reasonable to conclude that Enterprise 3.0 and 4.0 are just around the corner, and Enterprise 10.0 and 20.0 (whatever these may be) will be available someday as well. Nevertheless, an enormous amount of resources have been devoted to developing and improving Enterprise 2.0 technologies that can help businesses of all sizes and types improve their ability to share information and communicate with their internal and external customers in ways that were not possible in the past. Therefore, it just makes good business sense to take advantage of the increased communications capabilities provided by Enterprise 2.0 systems until such time as something better comes along to replace them.

Discussion

As noted in the introductory chapter, this study was guided by several research questions which are reiterated and answered in sum below:

1. To quantify through secondary research the contributions of social networks to the collaborative performance of organizations across their value chains.

2. To classify performance results reported in empirical studies according to a system that provides an easily understood framework for comparing results across studies.

3. Through the use of secondary research, to quantify the contribution of social networking technologies and enterprise 2.0-based applications at an industry level of analysis.

4. To combine the empirically derived performance results across industries and create an Enterprise 2.0-based maturity model based on the accumulated research and analysis.

Based on the inclusion of primary research, two additional objectives were added which are reiterated and answered in sum below:

1.

Based on interviews with industry experts in the field of social collaboration and adoption of social networking technologies in enterprises, quantify the breakout levels of each layer of the maturity model. The Enterprise 2.0 continuum of maturity includes three basic levels: (1) Unified Communication and Collaboration, (2) Enterprise Content Management and (3) Social Network & Community (Philip 2010). A fully mature Enterprise 2.0 model can be considered as one that includes, unified communications, live collaboration, rating and folksonomy, forum, blog and microblogging, podcasting and video sharing, project centric collaboration and wiki; however, the utility of each of these tools depends on the needs of the organization and some may be regarded as superfluous to its needs (Philip 2010). The respective breakout levels of each layer of the maturity model, though, were shown to be less easily quantifiable than other aspects of Enterprise 2.0 technologies. For instance, Kuettner et al. (2013, p. 334) point out that, "It is still very difficult to quantify actual benefits" and compares the challenge "with asking how much employees benefit from the coffee machine." Indeed, Kuettner et al. (2013) concede that, "Even more so than in ERP projects" there is "a lack of measurability in Enterprise 2.0." Despite this fundamental constraint, each breakout level was characterized by several critical success factors, including the need to overcome resistance to change, top-down management support and high-profile executives using the technologies visibly. Each level was also characterized by the addition of new Enterprise 2.0 tools and services, with each level requiring corresponding levels of management support. The adoption of increasingly sophisticated and powerful Enterprise 2.0 tools, though, requires concomitant training and support for as well as acceptance by users (Hugi 2010). Finally, as with any project, success stories should be publicized, celebrated and rewarded (Consoli 2013).

2.

Define the characteristics of fast- and slow-adopting industries of the core Enterprise 2.0 concepts and define a spectrum of their relative levels of maturity. Novice Enterprise 2.0 companies employ the bare-bones minimum of technologies and tools such as a forum and online chat and adopt a "wait-and-see" approach to determine how users will respond to these implementations. By contrast, fast-adopting industries implement a comprehensive, fully mature version of Enterprise 2.0 technologies and tools and attempt to achieve optimal results. The appropriateness of the approaches depends on a number of factors, including the size and type of organization as well as its experience with Web-based technologies. Regardless of the approach used, though, some of the common features of successful Enterprise 2.0 implementations include careful and thoughtful planning and change management oversight (Kuettner et al. 2013).

Implications of Findings

The research was consistent in showing that Enterprise 2.0 initiatives involve multiple change factors that must be taken into account during implementation and administration, and these factors require appropriate management strategies and new roles within the organization (Kuettner et al. 2013). The research also showed that it is important to consider the underlying rationale in support of a move to an Enterprise 2.0 solution to ensure its appropriateness for the organization. Assuming the Enterprise 2.0 solution is appropriate, it is then important to ensure that these tools are used in the most effective way possible, and to monitor the progress of the implementation over time to identify opportunities for improvement or the need for management intervention (McNamee & Schoch 2010). It is also possible for organizations to place too much priority on different Enterprise 2.0 features and subsystems to the detriment of others that may be more important for the success of an Enterprise 2.0 initiative (McNamee & Shoch 2010). Finally, the research was absolutely consistent in showing that Enterprise 2.0 implementations are complex and there is a basic need for a comprehensive plan to guide the process (Consoli 2013).

Critical Reflection, Rigor and Self-Evaluation

There remains a significant level of "wait-and-see" mentality among many practitioners concerning the value of Enterprise 2.0 solutions, a condition that is not overly surprising given the relative recentness of its evolution into mainstream business settings. Some of this reluctance is also understandable based on a lack of understanding concerning the capabilities of social media networks and their respective applications among many practitioners today. The results of the interviews with industry experts and the secondary literature confirmed that these and other constraints to the full deployment of Enterprise 2.0 solutions will affect the level of up-take for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, it is reasonable to conclude that new and innovative methods for using these technologies will continue to be identified to the point where companies that fail to embrace them will suffer a competitive disadvantage compared to their counterparts that do. Therefore, future research should focus on identifying those critical success factors that have been proven to be the most effective in using Enterprise 2.0 solutions according to industry sector and business type. In sum, the overall contribution to the general body of knowledge made by this study was to provide a snapshot of the status quo and to extrapolate future potential needs and applications based on recent and current trends.