Bill: When we say it's not about the technology, we're saying that it's not about technology for technology's sake, but technology for the sake of the individual (http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/08/27/mcafee-its-not-not-about-the-technology/). The biggest problem is still a HUGE elephant in the living room: most technology projects are staffed with nothing but technologists. And where they even agree to hire people-focused staff they will often disqualify them based on the use of certain technologies. There are very few technologies today whose designs are lead by (or even include participatory contributions from) non-technical resources. This is the main travesty.

Stunning!

Brilliant post (circled here by way of @SourcePOV). Indeed KM is a 'static', entropic model. Our goal was never to manage knowledge, but to facilitate thinking (love the 'knowing organization' perspective). But trying to challenge same always ruffles a lot of feathers http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/15/km-nerves-are-raw/

Same as the fallacy of 'management'. You can't 'build' trust. You can only facilitate it by allowing for individuals to get their work done. The goal is not to build trust, but to find ways to dispel mistrust.

Somehow this brought to mind for me "The Art of the Strategic Conversation" http://www.slideshare.net/julianjenkins/the-art-of-strategic-conversation

Yep. You're missing Traction TeamPage: http://traction.tractionsoftware.com/

Good to know the non-alcoholic versions work. The problem is, ordering any (not to mention 'good') non-alcoholic wines in a restaurant. My favorite brand is Ariel http://www.arielvineyards.com/ Consider this a low-tech campaign to get people to ask for non-alcoholic wines at restaurants so they'll have them in stock for the rest of us.

You illustrate a point that those of us who design work experiences are all too familiar with: be careful how you ask workers questions, because they wear many hats which often have conflicting agenda. If you ask me as a personal worker what I'd prefer, it might likely be different that if I have to respond with my 'defend the agenda of the department' hat on.

I'm still mulling whether I'm agreeing with you or disagreeing with you (and maybe I read way too fast). For me, the elements of an 'adoption strategy' are embodied in the design. The more you introduce later in the stream the more it means you failed to bake something relevant into the design. If you want to suggest that you don't have control over the design because you're simply implementing a technology? Well then, we're not talking a 2.0 implementation no matter what the tool is.

Came back by to really dissect the review. LOTS of great stuff. I love his challenge to those who use complexity in sheep's clothing. And these favs: "In other words, in socially complex processes, so-called “facts” are always circumscribed by issues of power, ideology and identity." [exactly the 'lore' I go hunting for] The nature of business as a game: people “… are pre-occupied by the game rather than [as suggested by the dominant discourse] acting rationally to achieve goals.” And of course the culminating highlight you offered: “Perhaps we need to accept that management and leadership are not sciences but fundamentally social phenomena" Thanks for the appetizers which will have to suffice until I can buy a copy : )

Chris: This is way better than sending me an email : ) "the ‘stuff’ of organizations – such as actions, outputs and outcomes - emerge from the ongoing, self-organizing dynamics of people interacting together" And yet, where in organizations is anyone focused on these most critical, life-sustaining interactions? Oh, the potential that is constantly lost to inattention and chance (and yet businesses will soundly proclaim all the things they do to avoid risk -- poppycock!).

Dan: With a whole lot of trips 'around the block', I'm pretty sure that "get on with just doing a good job" is a lot of the issues at hand. Clearly, I've found my share of 'crazies' -- but the more you dig into what their issues are, it's almost always related to them being 'prevented' from doing their job. In listening to stories from a return soldier, I'd say the military is doing a far better job of finding ways to help the troops do their job than IT. "achieving the greater good of a successful business"? To what end? I've seen deathmarch, after deathmarch for projects that were discarded the next month. At some point you have to believe that you're being asked to go to battle for a purpose and that the leadership is supporting your efforts. I'm not sure that's the predominant "soup of the day". I think there's a lot of 'suck it up' fatigue out there. But on the flip side, it's a far cry from being in a coal mine all day, or in the heat of the desert sun, so you may still have a point. Lyn: My trips around the block lately have been on the 'front' and not as much on the 'back' so I'm thankful for the XML database insights you've provided here. Sounds like some of the things we've been 'waiting' for are finally coming to bear.

Actually, design thinking suggests that we first challenge the assumption that a chair is needed at all : ) And you've taken 'design' out of context. There are all sorts of factors involved, and cost is obviously one of them. Your suggestion is one taken by many 'designerly' types -- but is not design thinking.

While I fundamentally agree with you (and responded directly to same previously http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/08/31/6-crockalicious-posts/), where I absolutely agree with the detractors is on what is being passed off as E2.0. Standing up technology and calling it E2.0 is not what this is all about. Its about putting architectures and infrastructures in place to fundamentally allow people to change the way business is conducted. I'd have to say that there are a lot of initiatives that are a bunch of crock.

Innovation isn't about idea campaigns nor is it something to be 'managed'. It is however, something to be facilitated and enabled...and it starts to look a lot like creating a business where people can actually 'do' business.

Nice way to capture the power of 'flow'.

Serendipity strikes. I backed into this 'old' post via a 'new' post and yours is far more relevant than the other one. How appropriate that you have in print 'way back' part of an analogy that struck me today. I had drawn the association to companies 'claiming' they're doing something 2.0 related when in many cases they're not doing much more than creating "internal Wikipedias" (as I experienced in a very large 'consulting' company -- where the 'thought leaders' were so far behind the curve...but that's another story). What I realized based on a 'reminder via experience' today, is that if they're going to do something simple, they might as well do something of REAL value like create an internal Snopes -- to denounce the many cultural lores that are randomly accepted as fact but have never been validated/verified.