Starting a Code of Practice for Enterprise 2.0

Rex Lee recently posted a Code for Enterprise 2.0 Practioners. He wrote that his first three items in the code will be to value at all costs the personal impact of social computing, see people as resources not to be exploited, and realize that the crowd is not always right. He asks why is a code need and answers, “Because the implications of social computing go far beyond a piece of technology. The personal nature of social computing means we have a moral responsibility. “ Good points.

There are much evidence that the market is starting to understand that this is not simply a technology play. He adds that within Enterprise 2.0 efforts (were archiving is better enabled), “beliefs, thoughts, ideas of individuals was more than just data and information. It was a representation of themselves personally.” The huge potential here for the even more robust archiving to achieve this personal representation was brought home again to me when I read the New Yorker article on Gordon Bell’s work, Remember This?, (May 28.2007). See my post, Where Are We Going? What will be Enterprise 20.0?, in the Fast Forward blog for a summary of the article and details of my thoughts on this issue. Given the untapped power of Enterprise 2.0 to lay bare the inter-workings of the enterprise and each individual within it, a code is certainly in order.

I think Rex has a good starting point. What would you add to the list? I might align the first two to read “understand the deep potential personal impact of social computing and not use it as a means exploit these people.” Perhaps this was Rex’s intention. The danger can be seen in such efforts as the Dark Side of Enterprise 2.0. enterprise 2.0 web 2.0 enterprise social media

Comments

[Michael Clarke]

Hmm. Nice idea, but it will take quite a seismic shift in business practices to take people away from viewing users as, ultimately, commodities as long as entrepreneurs are driven by material measures of success (how much will Google or Yahoo pay for us?) and funded by VCs or angels with a well-defined exit timeline (e.g. when will Google or Yahoo pay for us). That's putting it crudely and I've no doubt that people start off with the best of intentions but Last.fm weren't bought by CBS because they saw a chance to view their customers as complete, rounded individuals. Corporations don't have a tremendously good record of regulating themselves when it comes to having to put users' interests above their own - think Lessig's example of FM radio or the food industry.

Perhaps (thinking about the latter), what's needed is a users' code of practice, not a companies'. In other words, we, as users, promise to vote with our feet if our rights and value as individuals aren't properly respected. Macdonald's didn't introduce salads because they felt scared of gov. Digg's little bust-up with their user base would be an exemplary instance of what I mean.

Users, given the greater and greater equality of interaction Web/Enterprise/Education 2.0 offers, ultimately have as great a responsibility to enforce good practice by actively rejecting poor behavior (see a recent post on my site for an instance of our own institution - and myself! - getting a richly deserved and user-delivered slap).

Sorry to have rambled on!

[Bill Ives]

Michael - Great comment - no need to apologize - thanks for taking the time to develop your ideas. I will look at your site for the example you mention. Bill

[Michael Clarke]

A slightly more relevant second thought and candidate for a code - managers (including myself) need to sit on their hands when implementing anything that could be scoped as Enterprise 2.0. Give the project a gentle little shove to set it going and leave it alone - unless you're prepared to participate as a user in every sense. I'll shut up now!

[Bill Ives]

No need to be quiet. I appreciated your story about Facebook and will be wiriitng about it here in the coming days. Bill

[Dennis D. McDonald in Alexandria, Virginia USA]

I left a comment for Rex Lee on his list as follows: "Perhaps a corollary to your Number 2 [people are not resources to be exploited] would be "2a. RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT RESOURCES TO BE EXPLOITED."

[Bill Ives]

Dennis - Good addition. Thanks, Bill

[Rex]

Bill, Thanks for the reference and interesting dialogue. When I thought about the code, it was really at the practitioner level not at the corporate level. That would be more the evangelist, the manager, the developer, etc...

[Bill Ives]

Rex - working at the practioneer level is more aligned with Michael's user level comment. Thanks for starting the dialog. Bill