Enterprise 2.0 and Social Networking Effects on Collaboration

Introduction and Project Objectives

There continues to be empirically derived evidence that the accumulated effects of social networking technologies on corporate performance contribute 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 pressure, time-to-market demands, global economic uncertainty, and disruptive innovation, there is an urgent need for businesses competing 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: 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 outbound aspects of their business models first (McAfee 2006). This focus on externally based integration points further complicates change management, as there are already innate communication differences across the many, often siloed organizational, departmental, distribution, and service channel structures that 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, a clear experience or network effect occurred 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).

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 continue to transition from nascent to mainstream adoption, with these technologies playing a supporting role in global business performance (Trimi & Galanxhi 2014). In sum, the intent of this study was to isolate and examine these dynamics as described further below.

The initial objectives for this project were as follows:

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 quartile 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 by quartile 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, the following additional objectives were also 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 with respect to core Enterprise 2.0 concepts, and define a spectrum of their relative levels of maturity. This constitutes a more horizontal view across industries of Enterprise 2.0 adoption, including a focus on which factors most and least contribute to success in change management strategies. Previous studies indicate how critical change management planning and orchestration are overall, making this a critical factor for the success of the overall program (Kuettner et al. 2013).

The foundational elements of Enterprise 2.0 have been in existence for decades, albeit far less automated than they are today. Further, the findings of McAfee 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 (McAfee 2006). 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 — spanning from simple cooperation and 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 remain 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 on the continuum of the Enterprise 2.0 maturity curve (Trimi & Galanxhi 2014). By isolating the network effect and its role in bringing greater maturation into enterprise networks, each specific factor 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 within social networks acts as an accelerator, provided trust and transparency have first been firmly established across all system boundaries (Dyer & Nobeoka 2000).

The project's direction shifted from being based on secondary research alone to being focused on a series of expert-level interviews with specialists in Enterprise 2.0 concepts and technology adoption. All experts were contacted, and several work at industry research firms including Gartner, a large American IT consultancy; Forrester; International Data Corporation (IDC); and several smaller consultancies located in the United Kingdom, including Ovum. Gartner and IDC offered to provide academic assistance in the form of responding to short questionnaires and allocating 30 minutes of analyst time. The constraint on these analyst calls was the time zone differences, and the analysts who are experts in Enterprise 2.0 were booked out into mid-December. Appointments were made with each available analyst, notwithstanding the risk that Gartner might cancel if a paying client required a specific time slot. Success was achieved in submitting questionnaires to leading experts at Gartner, IDC, and Forrester. Due to their willingness to participate at a minimum in a survey, the risk of not connecting with these experts was significantly diminished, and eight experts were successfully interviewed in time for their responses to be transcribed and incorporated into the study's findings.

The literature review continued with the goals defined previously. One of the most interesting threads found in empirical data concerns how communication, collaboration, and the use of technologies to accelerate them have long been relied upon in distributed supply chain networks created initially by Japanese and Asian manufacturers. Following the series of referenced studies and research foundations of Dyer and Nobeoka (2000), it is evident that the use of lean production techniques to orchestrate large, geographically dispersed supply chains holds lessons of value for companies attempting to galvanize diverse operations using social networks. The Toyota Production System (TPS) is predicated on a foundation of lean production techniques including Kanban, lean Six Sigma quality, and Just-In-Time production scheduling — all aspects of any manufacturing operation that are highly quantifiable (Dyer & Nobeoka 2000). In researching the foundational elements of how these supply chain networks were formed and continually improved, the catalyst of collaboration and frequent communication over mechanistic processes led to greater results (Dyer & Nobeoka 2000). The focus of this study was therefore on gaining as much insight as possible into how collaboration and communication in the context of proven social networks (supply chains) deliver financial and operational performance efficiently over time.

Review of the Literature

This project demonstrated that only when a specific direction is chosen and committed to can meaningful progress be made. To vacillate is to fail; to be resolute is to succeed. Ironically, this is also the case with many of the most successful social networks that exist today — albeit they are called supply chains or supplier networks. One of the most enlightening aspects of this research is the fact that while social networks are heavily hyped and the subject of much commentary among intellectuals and practitioners, upon deeper reflection they share many of the same attributes as networks that have existed for centuries.

The industry experts at each of the consultancies mentioned were contacted with ethical consent forms, and their legal teams reviewed them. Ensuring the ethical integrity of the study by abiding by the research firms' insistence that no specific analyst be singled out as the respondent was critically important. The research firms' primary concern was the confidentiality of their analysts and researchers.

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 tools such as online chat features, forums, blogs, wikis, and social media networks 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 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 can be complex and challenging unless a number of critical success factors are taken into account, and these issues form the basis of the discussion that follows.

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 organizations to share accurate information efficiently and in a 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 and that rely on different email, 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 relative to 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."

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 (Greenberg 2011). Likewise, engaging in social media has been shown to strengthen the brand experience, which supports brand building (Edosomwan et al. 2011). Where there is a solid brand name, businesses are far more likely to attract customers and become more attractive to current and potential employees. 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 Enterprise 2.0 business is defined by Consoli (2013, p. 37) as "a new advanced company that interacts with all stakeholders of the supply chain and in particular with customers using web 2.0 tools (blog, forum, chat, wiki) and social networks." Irrespective of the industry or sector involved, it is vitally important for companies considering the implementation of an Enterprise 2.0 system to recognize the organizational value of information exchanges beyond those that are recipient-initiated, or "pull interactions" (McNamee & Schoch 2010). In this context, pull interactions are primarily restricted to the resolution of a single problem area wherein practitioners identify a gap in their knowledge base and conduct research to develop relevant solutions (McNamee & Schoch 2010). Conversely, "push (or source-initiated) interactions" are those in which unsolicited knowledge is provided in an attempt to resolve issues that remain unknown at present (McNamee & Schoch 2010). According to McNamee and Schoch (2010, p. 65), "Push interactions and unsolicited knowledge exchanges are critical for nurturing organizational agility, the ability to change, and innovation."

Given the dramatic increase in the popularity of social media in the consumer space, it is not surprising that a wide range of Enterprise 2.0 technologies have emerged to take advantage of these new capabilities (Pontefract 2011). Although this trend was originally limited to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook used in firewall-protected environments within organizations, it has since expanded to include specific social media network tools designed for corresponding corporate applications (Pontefract 2011). For instance, Pontefract (2011, p. 55) points out that, "Unlike other technologies, practices, or processes, social media inside the organization, for many companies, doesn't belong in one single business unit; it lazily shifts among interested parties regardless of function or title." This same tendency has been regarded as a negative outcome by some corporate executives who consider any offering with the word "social" in its title a frivolity rather than a legitimate business tool. In response to this misguided perception, Andrew McAfee of MIT counters that social media can be a valuable addition to an organization's IT repertoire, conceptualized as Enterprise 2.0, or more specifically "the use of emergent social software platforms within companies" (cited in Pontefract 2011, p. 55).

Enterprise 2.0, E2.0, and Enterprise Social Computing are terms introduced to describe the application of emergent social computing platforms within organizations or between organizations and their supply chain partners, strategic alliances, and customers. These platforms provide real-time connections between individuals throughout the enterprise and facilitate the sharing of knowledge and collaboration in ways that are more natural (McNamee & Schoch 2010). Although every organization is unique in some fashion, the empirical evidence to date confirms that these interconnected, open platforms provide a broad array of opportunities to leverage the collective intelligence of employees in ways that promote innovation, productivity, and profitability (McNamee & Schoch 2010). As Altamimi (2013, p. 15) reports, "There has been a very significant increase in the use of Web 2.0 applications within companies and the momentum of these emerging tools is also manifested in the recent term of Enterprise 2.0 coined by Professor Andrew McAfee to highlight the fact that smart companies are embracing Web 2.0 technologies, as well as the underlying approach to collaboration and creation of content."

Social media has also become one of the easiest ways to improve productivity and generate natural interest in the work carried out by employees. Using these media, companies can track employee creativity and enthusiasm (Edosomwan et al. 2011). There have also been efforts to quantify the impact of Enterprise 2.0 applications on business profitability and performance. For instance, the Collaboration Continuum Research-on-Research working group was initiated in 2009, with a mandate to understand the business value of Enterprise 2.0 systems — including social networking, forums, wikis, blogs, and microblogs — in enabling collaboration and innovation (Schoch & Oelschlaeger 2011).

In order to help organizations achieve and sustain a competitive advantage, senior management must continually invest in new approaches to communicating and collaborating, and in reducing the siloed walls that prevent divisions from communicating. The change management necessary to accomplish this cannot be achieved simply by having a CEO order everyone to be more collaborative. Instead, there must be a continual introduction of new collaborative tools on a scalable, secured, and stable communications platform. Increasingly, organizations are relying on social media platforms precisely for these attributes. Social media platforms have the added benefit of being cloud-based, enabling them to be immediately available on any mobile, handheld, tablet, or computing device that can connect to the Internet. The underlying concepts and frameworks of Enterprise 2.0 are in large part predicated on the many benefits that organizations accrue from widespread adoption of social networking platforms deliberately designed to break down organizational barriers (Kuettner, Diehl & Schubert 2013).

There are a myriad of symptoms that organizations exhibit when there is a lack of accurate, timely communication, collaboration, and shared knowledge. The greatest of these is the complete inability to manage highly orchestrated, complex tasks that require intensive coordination (Trimi & Galanxhi 2014). The most telling indicator of all is how well a new product introduction is managed. How a company manages a new product introduction reveals more about how well coordinated and orchestrated it is internally than any other single activity. That is why nearly every member of the Fortune 500 is actively using some form of Enterprise 2.0-based platform to break down the silos that separate its many divisions. This extends deep into supply chains and manufacturing operations as well, as can be seen in how pervasively Toyota uses collaborative planning and forecasting techniques as part of the Toyota Production System (Dyer & Nobeoka 2000).

In many ways, the approaches used by Toyota with their manually based TPS foreshadow the future of Enterprise 2.0 systems in a nascent yet very strategic way. The challenges associated with creating an effective, unified, and highly structured approach to managing the new vehicle process at Toyota are abundant with opportunities for miscommunication (Dyer & Nobeoka 2000). From managing suppliers to individual quality standards and delivery deadlines, to keeping European and U.S. distribution channels updated on the latest status of new vehicles about to be launched, Toyota must strive to create a unified system for ensuring collaboration. Without it, the company would quickly lose competitive ground, as the majority of its net new revenue is derived from new vehicle sales.

When a social media site is used for a business, it enlarges the conversation by calling out the brand name through viral exposure. A company must be truly dedicated to engagement through social media, as much as its customers are. Social media is also a cost-effective method for marketing activities (Paridon & Carraher 2009). It was used by businesses initially to market products and services at minimal cost. Because of extreme economic conditions following the recession, companies made several decisions that affected customers negatively (Carraher, Buchanan & Puia 2010). Social media played a critical role in this environment as the most inexpensive method of marketing and advertising, while also offering brands a reliable channel through which to rebuild trust. Social media allowed two-way communication between brands and customers and enabled companies to react to customer concerns. Moreover, social media is not only a place to market products and services, but also a place to interact with customers to try to solve their problems.

The recognition of the value of different types of knowledge exchanges has critical implications for the design and implementation of E2.0 systems, which can facilitate interactions along the full continuum from pull to push (McNamee & Schoch 2010). While knowledge management repositories and Q&A-based forums can be quite useful as knowledge-pull resources, blogs and microblogs may more successfully enable knowledge push, and RSS feeds can allow users to choose to receive a manageable amount of knowledge in selected domains. The traditional emphasis on reducing "noise" via better repositories and more-accurate search engines risks eliminating serendipity; E2.0 can create electronic "water-cooler" spaces where unexpected but valuable conversations occur (McNamee & Schoch 2010).

Other necessary shifts in thinking include the need to reconsider what constitutes "knowledge" — moving beyond codified, proven solutions to consider tacit knowledge, creative ideas, and collaborative exploration of problem spaces — as well as the need to recognize that both electronic and real-world collaboration fall within the purview of knowledge management, and to realize the full range of employee motivations that impact knowledge sharing (McNamee & Schoch 2010).

Employees are now engaging Enterprise 2.0 tools beyond blogs and wikis, focusing more on social media with increased activity on sites and platforms such as Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn (McKay 2008). Furthermore, many employees are increasingly using social networks at the consumer level in their personal lives, placing additional pressure on organizations to implement social media applications (McKay 2008). Social media can be regarded as a business strategy and a broadcasting platform, while social networking can be viewed as a tool and a utility for facilitating interpersonal contacts (Edosomwan et al. 2011). The difference between the two is not merely terminological but relates to the functions and features used in online offerings. As Edosomwan et al. (2011, p. 37) note, "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." Another difference concerns the style of communication: "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" (Edosomwan et al. 2011, p. 37).

An overview of the most popular social media sites is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Overview of the Most Popular Current Social Media Sites
Source: Adapted from Edosomwan et al. 2011, p. 80, unless otherwise indicated.

Facebook — Facebook is a social networking website launched in February 2004 and privately operated by Facebook, Inc. Founded by Mark Zuckerberg and others while he was a student at a university, the site was initially restricted to students at that institution. Later the privilege was extended to high school students and subsequently to everyone aged 13 or older. As of July 2010, Facebook had more than 500 million active users. In January 2009, Facebook was ranked as the most used social network worldwide. In May 2010, Google announced that more people visited Facebook than any other website in the world. Users can create personal profiles, add other users as friends, and exchange messages, photos, and comments. Facebook users may also join common interest groups organized by workplace, school, or other characteristics. On October 24, 2007, Microsoft announced it had purchased a 1.6% share of Facebook for $240 million, giving Facebook a total implied value of around $15 billion.

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. In November 2006, within a year of its launch, YouTube was purchased by Google Inc. YouTube entered into a number of partnership relations with content providers such as CBS, BBC, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Group, Warner Music Group, and the NBA. By 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.

Twitter — Twitter came into existence in 2006 and gained popularity initially because it offered micro-blogging capabilities and was used by celebrities. It reached 58.5 million users worldwide in 2009, a 949% increase since September 2008 (Schonfeld 2009). The specificity of Twitter lies in its messages — tweets — that can have a maximum of 140 characters, with the default setting public, meaning that the essence of events can be transmitted instantaneously across the network on a large scale (Jansen et al. 2009). This led Twitter's owners, practitioners, and researchers 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 gains of £1.9 million from sales and cost savings via Twitter (Campaign 2009; Davidson 2009). Nevertheless, there are numerous open questions related to Twitter's actual business potential (Dorbian 2010), particularly due to limited research (Zhao & Rosson 2009), ROI measurement issues (Fisher 2009), and a lack of strategic understanding and planning (Gunning 2009).

MySpace — MySpace is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California. In 2006, MySpace became the most popular social networking website in the United States but was overtaken in 2008 by Facebook. Approximately 43.2 million users visit MySpace on a monthly basis. A unique feature of MySpace is the ability for users to customize their profile information in detail. MySpace also has a special profile for musical artists where they can upload their music as MP3 files.

LinkedIn — LinkedIn is used by recruiters, with approximately 80% of companies using 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 unconnected users, save profiles to folders, and access premium search filters and automated search alerts (Ford & Lim 2011). A range of premium account levels exists for business owners, recruiters, and job seekers. Two users connect when one sends an invitation to the other and the other accepts. LinkedIn suggests potential connections based on profile information, employment history, and educational background (Ford & Lim 2011).

In sum, social media facilitates individual interactions by allowing users to reach a much broader audience through leveraging the "long tail" concept — 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, all of which have their respective advantages and disadvantages. The use of social media networks can help overcome some of these disadvantages and improve communications channels in organizations of all sizes and types. As Edosomwan et al. (2011, p. 37) point out, "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 where individuals are encouraged to work as part of a team, given the expanded flexibility afforded by social media tools and the ability to share information in real time. 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. As Edosomwan et al. (2011, p. 38) add, "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 assist them in remaining current with the most recent developments in their industry and maintaining awareness of what competitors are doing to achieve a competitive advantage (Edosomwan et al. 2011).

In sum, social media acts as a powerful way to communicate brand value and brand attributes through 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 webcasts and videos, rather than simple text; helping to communicate collaboratively between current and potential customers in receiving feedback, product definition, product development, or customer service and support; encouraging members of the company's workforce to become members of a well-recognized community; and serving as a venue for discussions that supports marketing and communications goals — while ensuring that employees adhere to the rules and etiquette 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 "social customer relationship management" remains uncertain, many industry analysts agree that Enterprise 2.0 has a brighter outlook 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."

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

The conceptual design framework for Enterprise 2.0 implementations is evidence-based and generally follows 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 used by collaborative systems as well as being maintained by the organization's information services department (Consoli 2013).

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

Analysis and benchmarking: Comparison with market solutions, primarily on usability, accessibility, and efficiency. Development: Selecting the infrastructure (Software as a Service, Cloud Computing, etc.) and the collaborative platform; assigning specific roles to human resources; and designing security policies. Integration: Integrating applications of the information system with the contents of web channels. Deployment: Delivery and launch of the platform, involving and motivating internal staff. Adoption: Showing best practices and guidelines and activating training sessions. Change implementation: Starting in a business area with motivated groups, experimenting with a soft interactive and collaborative approach, and leaving out of the project people who are not motivated. Change should be encouraged through leadership that transmits motivation, a sense of direction, and widespread involvement that generates social dynamics and mutual encouragement (Consoli 2013).

It is also important at this point to take into account the following principles: transparency and accessibility of information, so that people have access to relevant information and communication flows openly without restriction (where there are no objective requirements of confidentiality); mutual influence and social control, so that individual initiatives and innovative practices inside and outside of the company are 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 completed, 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.

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, and the number of innovative ideas created (Consoli 2013).

Although every organization is unique and its implementation of an Enterprise 2.0 initiative will differ accordingly, 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 of participants; the simplicity of the technological tools; the exchange of information; the quality of exchanged information; the support provided to the implementation; and the results achieved versus 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 that opportunities for improvement and the need for management interventions are identified. During the start-up phase, continuous monitoring and the execution of specific corrections are necessary to lead the enterprise into a fully 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 to 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."