terry ledrew aprj-699 implementing enterprise social...

Terry LeDrew APRJ-699

Implementing Enterprise Social Networking at the Air Warfare Centre

Word Count: 14,229 29 March 2011 Dr. Dale Bent

Implementing Enterprise Social Networking at the Air Warfare Centre 2

Abstract

The Air Warfare Centre (AWC) is implementing enterprise social networking (ESN) as mandated by the UK Ministry of Defence. The MoD has also stipulated the specific solution to be used (SharePoint 2007) and laid out an implementation plan for the AWC to follow. The purpose of this paper is to answer the question, ―How can enterprise social networking be effectively implemented at the Air Warfare Centre?‖ This work includes a review of best practices for an ESN implementation as identified in literature, a comparison of these practices to the MoD plan, and the provision of recommendations for the AWC to consider for building upon the mandated plan. The methodology employed begins with a comprehensive literature review. The review includes material from journal articles, relevant books, credible Internet sites, and Athabasca University course content and supporting textbook material. ESN is defined, and effects described, including how ESN changes the way organizations work, the potential benefits, and possible pitfalls. Many best practices are identified, both for the implementation and final solution. The MoD implementation plan is then detailed and contrasted with the literature review. Finally, based on the comparison, several recommendations are provided. A convenient compartmentalization of the literature was observed during the review. Content was categorized as generally pertaining to people (groups and individuals and their responses to an ESN solution and implementation), the organization (cultural, structural, and governance changes), and the solution itself (positive traits associated with the solution and the transition from old to new). The MoD plan was similarly compartmentalized for ease of comparison. It was found that the people component had been seriously neglected. Possible user response to the implementation was not considered. This shortcoming is important because people can represent a single point of failure for any IT change, often regardless of how good the solution is. Additionally, no training for managers at any level was accounted for. This is a significant deficiency as managers will provide guidance and direction when the plan goes off course. No requirement for a champion was identified, nor any call for managers to support the effort by actively and visibly participating in the use of the ESN. The organizational component of the MoD plan was much better. It called for openness and transparency, key features in an ESN environment, but tempered this with calls for governance and security, which are important in a military installation. Features of the solution itself were appropriate, but that was partially a function of the off-the-shelf aspects of SharePoint 2007. For example, search and discovery were deemed vital in literature, and is already a feature of SharePoint, so there was no real initiative on the part of MoD to include the functionality. One real problem identified was the requirement for employees of the AWC to undergo training, but then to pass two tests spaced four weeks apart before they could obtain an ―IM Passport‖, without which access to the ESN would not be allowed. In an environment of significant cultural, organizational, and behavioural change, I did not see the value of users passing an


additional hurdle for access to a system where they do not necessarily see a benefit. I felt it would be better to have mandatory testing, but then to allow the users to grow with the ESN. Unfortunately this may be a feature of which the AWC has no control. Still, a recommendation was provided to express the apprehension of the AWC to the testing requirement. In summary the MoD implementation plan covers some aspects of best practices very well and others badly. The AWC needs to augment the MoD implementation with their own activities to realize a smooth transition to the new ESN system.


Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6

The Air Warfare Centre ................................................................................................... 7

Research Purpose and Research Questions .................................................................. 8

Research Question ...................................................................................................... 8

Scope and Assumptions .............................................................................................. 8

Literature Review and Review of Related Theory ........................................................... 9

What is Enterprise Social Networking? ........................................................................ 9

Resultant Changes .................................................................................................... 13

Benefits ...................................................................................................................... 13

Collaboration/communication ................................................................................. 13

Knowledge management ....................................................................................... 14

Rapid application development .............................................................................. 14

Training .................................................................................................................. 14

The People Component ............................................................................................. 15

Grouping People .................................................................................................... 15

Effect of Demographics .......................................................................................... 17

Social Ties ............................................................................................................. 19

Unified IT Acceptance Model ................................................................................. 20

Management Perspective ...................................................................................... 21

The Organizational Component ................................................................................. 22

Cultural Change ..................................................................................................... 23

Structural Change .................................................................................................. 26

Governance Change .............................................................................................. 28

The Solution Itself ...................................................................................................... 29

The Air Warfare Centre ESN Implementation ............................................................... 33

Overview .................................................................................................................... 33

SharePoint 2007 ........................................................................................................ 35

Implementation Details .............................................................................................. 37

Information Governance ......................................................................................... 37

Organizational Structure ........................................................................................ 37

Training .................................................................................................................. 38


Business Processes ............................................................................................... 38

Security .................................................................................................................. 38

ESN Growth and Evolution .................................................................................... 38

Research Design ........................................................................................................... 39

Results .......................................................................................................................... 40

Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 41

The people component .............................................................................................. 41

The organizational component .................................................................................. 42

The solution itself ....................................................................................................... 44

Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 45

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix A – MOSS adoption toolkit screenshot .......................................................... 47

Appendix B – MoD ESN Permission Rights .................................................................. 48

References .................................................................................................................... 49


Introduction

A measure of apprehension is understandable for organizations considering integrating Internet technologies into their operations. The Internet can be a hostile and even dangerous place, so why bring that environment into the workplace? At the same time, the Internet has completely changed society. It is on par with the printing press or the automobile for revolutionizing the way we live. In a similar fashion to the Internet‘s impact on society, Web 2.0 has revolutionized the Internet. Feedback and discussion forums have made consumers better informed and given them greater purchasing power. Wikis have provided easy access to accurate and timely information. Social networks have brought families and friends closer together. On the surface it seems that many of these benefits can be translated to businesses. Feedback and discussion forums can be used to make decision quicker and at a lower cost. Wikis can capture vital knowledge and intellectual property that might otherwise be lost when a specific individual leaves an organization. Social networks can bring professionals together to solve the challenges companies face. The question for managers and executives is whether or not the benefits of Web 2.0 outweigh the accompanying costs and risks. The trend appears to indicate that business in general is adopting the technology. ―A May 2009 Forrester Research study found that almost 50% of companies in the U.S. use some kind of social software, and a July 2009 Prescient Digital Media survey revealed that 47% of respondents were using wikis, 45% blogs, and 46% internal discussion forums (McAfee A. P., 2009). ―75 percent of respondents indicate in a recent global McKinsey survey of executives that their companies have invested and will either maintain or even increase their investments in Web 2.0 tools (Schneckenberg, 2009).‖ The use of Web 2.0 technologies for internal operations in an organization is often referred to as Enterprise Social Networking or ESN. Despite the trend of businesses to implement ESN solutions and the potential for return that exists, not every company that has tried ESN has realized the benefits. ―Only 21 percent of [businesses] say they are satisfied overall with Web 2.0 tools, while 22 percent voice clear dissatisfaction. Further, some disappointed companies have stopped using certain technologies altogether (Bughin, Manyika, & Miller, 2008).‖ Clearly organizations will have to carefully decide whether or not to pursue ESN, what specific technologies to use, and how to ensure the implementation has the best chance for success. The United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (MoD) is rolling out an ESN across all the military installations in the country. The Air Warfare Centre (AWC), located in Waddington, Lincoln is one such unit. This paper will support the ESN implementation at the AWC by reviewing best practices identified in literature, comparing those practices against the MoD implementation plan, and providing recommendations that will help ensure a successful rollout of the ESN.


Like most Internet technologies, the term ESN is not well-defined, and is often used interchangeably with other similar but not necessarily equivalent terms. This paper will define what ESN means for this specific research, and clarify its place among the many terms that are loosely used to define Web 2.0 technologies. We will then examine what effects these technologies have on organizations and the way they carry out their business. The literature will be reviewed to determine what practices and implementation choices work best to ensure the organization, as well as its employees, not only survive an ESN implementation, but thrive in the new operating environment. It is important to point out that this paper does not examine whether or not an ESN should be implemented at the AWC. Although this is a valuable exercise for any organization considering this technology, the AWC implementation is being mandated by the MoD. Similarly, this paper will not investigate the various ESN products as Microsoft SharePoint has also been mandated as the specific solution. The Air Warfare Centre

The Air Warfare Centre (AWC), headquartered in Waddington, Lincoln, UK is the center of expertise in the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) for all matters pertaining to air warfare, including doctrine, concepts, electronic warfare, and joint air operations. ―The AWC Mission is to contribute to the military capability of Air Comd [Command] by developing and implementing operational and tactical doctrine and providing essential and timely integrated mission support to RAF [Royal Air Force] operational units in peace and in war. Additionally, the AWC, as host to the collocated DEWC [Defence Electronic Warfare Centre], contributes to the military capability of all 3 Services by providing EW [electronic warfare] support direct to PJHQ [Permanent Joint Headquarters] and all operational units (Royal Air Force, 2011).‖ The AWC employs highly skilled and knowledgeable individuals in the various fields of air warfare. The professions of AWC members include scientists, engineers, military strategists, and highly-specialized technicians. These experts are also members of many worldwide communities of practice (COPs). Wenger and Snyder define COPs as ―groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise (2000, p. 139).‖ COPs advance knowledge and expertise in their fields in many ways, for example:

Drive strategy

Generate new lines of business

Solve problems

Promote the spread of best practices

Develop people‘s professional skills

Help companies recruit and retain talent (Wenger & Snyder, 2000, pp. 140-141). Some of the more visible communities the AWC contributes to are air warfare, electronic warfare, and military intelligence.


Knowledge and skills are key enablers of the work carried out in support of MoD Air Operations. With that in mind, the AWC will be implementing an ESN solution in the summer of 2011. The specific software package that will form the framework upon which ESN tools will be developed is the Microsoft SharePoint 2007 software collection.

Research Purpose and Research Questions

Research Question This paper will provide several recommendations in an effort to answer the following question: How can Enterprise Social Networking be effectively implemented at the Air Warfare Centre? Sub-problems associated with this question are:

What is ESN and what are the benefits associated with the various ESN services?

How are the various kinds of workers likely to benefit from different ESN services and what implementation approach will work best for each group?

What choice of ESN services, methods, or implementation frameworks seem most suited for AWC?

Scope and Assumptions The physical implementation of the technology, e.g. workstations, servers, or networks, is not the focus of the paper. Farhoomand asserts the need for a holistic implementation approach. He refers to what he calls a ―DOT framework‖ that considers five organizational dimensions (strategy, technology, people, processes, and structure) in any e-business change effort (2005, p. 24). Although he recognizes the importance of technology in an e-business change effort, it is only one of the five areas of challenge. Krell and Gale emphasize this point. ―In a study of 300 US, Canadian and European firms by consultants Towers Perrin (2000), respondents identified the major issues for e-business implementation as being related to people, organization culture and organization structure, with more than 75 percent indicating that their firms lacked adequately skilled employees and 87 percent citing an inappropriate organization structure (2005, p. 123).‖ The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has mandated that Microsoft Sharepoint 2007 will be the specific ESN software deployed at the AWC (as well as all other MoD sites). SharePoint will therefore form the basis of a specific Web 2.0 framework in my applied project. Additionally, since the decision to implement ESN has been mandated, I will not consider the strategic decision of whether or not to implement ESN. I will discuss some aspects of how the technology adds value and contributes to any competitive


advantage, but I will not consider the strategic merits as they pertain to a decision of whether or not to implement ESN. Literature Review and Review of Related Theory

What is Enterprise Social Networking? The term Enterprise Social Networking, or ESN, represents a stage in the evolution of Internet and Web technologies. The early Internet did not have a widespread graphical interface until the introduction of the Netscape Web browser. Netscape typified the Web 1.0 era, so named only after the term Web 2.0 was introduced by Darcy DiNucci in 1999 (Ruiz, 2008). Web 1.0 was very much a unidirectional information portal with Web users garnering much more information than they were contributing or interacting with. Some early Web 2.0-type technologies did exist in the Web 1.0 era; for example discussion forums, but not to the scale observed today. The development of Web 2.0 was a revolution for Internet users. It allowed for a much more interactive engagement with the Internet. Tools like wikis, blogs, social networks, really simple syndication (RSS), tagging, and mashups allowed Internet users to shape content rather than just ‗surf‘ it. These Web 2.0 ―services‖ are described in Figure 1 below, as well as some statistics on their use in organizations (Donston, 2008).

Blogs: short for ―web log‖, it allows users to make journal-

type entries for readers review. Blogs could be specific to a certain topic – e.g. developments in fashion, or could have no particular theme at all, such as an individual‘s daily experiences or Internet articles of interest. Wikis: derived from a Hawaiian term ‗wikiwiki‘ that means

fast or quick (Murugesan, 2007). They allow a single individual or multiple people to collectively update entries in an article-based web site. A good example is Wikipedia (Wikipedia, n.d.). RSS: stands for ―really simple syndication‖. This technology

allows users to subscribe to be informed of updates or changes to a web site or page. Social networks: allows members to post personal

information for invited guests to view. A typical example is Facebook (Facebook, 2011). Mashups: a web page whose content is collected from several sources and integrated to form new

original content. An example would be the collection of traffic patterns superimposed on a web-mapping service to provide a visual indication of routes where traffic is expected to be busy at a certain time of day. Peer-to-peer networking: a ―network [that] is created when two or more PCs are connected and

share resources (Cope, 2002).‖ A good example is the legally questionable music sharing sites that share disk space to transfer music files between computers. Tagging/bookmarking: a technology that allows users to associate a term with web content for

later review. As people associate consistent terminology with content, the ―tags‖ become searchable as a sort of index.

Figure 1: Web 2.0 services and usage statistics


Nagle and Sammon have described Web 2.0 as a ―platform of participation‖ and compartmentalized it three ways based on how the technologies are used (Nagle & Sammon, 2009, p. 350). The first compartment, which they refer to as ―Business Platforms‖, provides ways for people and organizations to interact and exchange with other people and organizations. Amazon provides a good application of the Web 2.0 business platform (Amazon.com, 2011). Amazon customers can provide product reviews for other customers considering the same or similar purchases, and those customers can even buy and sell products under the Amazon framework. Many companies set up discussion forums where they can harvest valuable information to guide future market offerings. Best Buy asks for customers to ―help us by sharing your own ideas, voting for ideas you like, and discussing them with the rest of the community (Best Buy, 2011).‖ The second compartment, labeled ―Social Platforms‖, facilitates interaction for people with no necessary focus, theme, or association. Facebook is a typical example (Facebook, 2011). People can publish information on any topic as long as it conforms to the Facebook acceptable use policy. For example, they can display personal photos, provide an opinion on current events, or profess their appeal or aversion to a particular product, event, person, or group. The final compartment, referred to as the ―Intra-organizational Platform‖, involves the use of Web 2.0 technologies within the confines of an organization to facilitate benefits like collaboration and knowledge management. The intra-organizational compartment is the concentration of this paper. I will use the term Enterprise Social Networking, or ESN, however there are several terms applied by various authors that can for the most part be used interchangeably to describe the intra-organizational use of Web 2.0. Some of these include Enterprise 2.0, and Web OS. Figure 2 below is adapted and extended from Nagle et al to illustrate the three compartments of Web 2.0, as well as various terms and examples for each (2009).

Figure 2: Web 2.0 Platform of Participation

Web 2.0 Platform of Participation

Business Platforms

Amazon.com Apple (AppStore)

Markets 2.0

Social Platforms

Facebook MySpace

Twitter

Intra-organizational Platforms

Enterprise Social Networking Enterprise 2.0

Web OS


It is important to note that although the three compartments are a useful way to describe how Web 2.0 technologies are used, they are not completely distinct from one another. They overlap in many ways. For example, social platforms can be utilized within the intra-organizational platform. Facebook-like networks can be used within an organization for people to acquaint themselves to co-workers, including contact information, skills and knowledge, and just general information like their pets, families, or hobbies. Similarly, business platform technologies can be set up within an intra-organizational platform to establish quasi-markets or even fully-fledged markets. Even though there is widespread use of Web 2.0 across the three compartments, many companies are apprehensive to adopt the technology over concerns about the associated costs and risks. Many compare the technology to the dot-com movement of the early millennium, saying that it promises more than it will deliver in the long-run (Andriole, 2010, p. 68), (Tredinnick, 2006, p. 229). It is understandable for companies to be cautious investing in ESN, and while there are services attributed to Web 2.0 that will undoubtedly have short staying power, it is unlikely that the technology as a platform will not endure in some form.


Gartner has developed the ―Hype Cycle‖ that shows where various technologies are in a predictable 5-stage evolution from inception to mainstream adoption (Turban & Volonino, 2010, p. 529). Figure 3 below shows the Hype Cycle for 2009, and Web 2.0 is just coming up on the Slope of Enlightenment having been at the very top of the Peak of Inflated Expectations in 2006, through the Trough of Disillusionment in 2007 and 2008. The technology is no longer on the curve in 2010, presumably having passed into the Plateau of Productivity. Web 2.0 has been through the Hype Cycle, and endures today, and companies should feel comfortable in implementing ESN that the technology is here to stay.

Figure 3: 2009 Gartner Hype Cycle (Gartner, 2009)


Resultant Changes Curry and English provide five general distinct and recognizable changes that can be realized through ESN1 (Curry & English, 2008): Information access change: ―At present, many companies have shared network drives that host large data sets with hundreds or even thousands of folders with tens of thousands of documents. … Users will not access the shared network drive to work with a document. Instead, they will access the document using a URL namespace via their browser or their Office client.‖ Breaking down information "kingdoms": Managers and departments often consider their information holdings to be just that – theirs. ESN breaks down these barriers and opens access to the wider organization, and sometimes further, for example other organizations in the company‘s supply chain. Document development and collaboration: Users will work on documents collectively, from meeting agendas, to reports, to wikis. Unique authors will be less commonplace. End-users as website administrators and creators: The vast amount of information across the organizational holdings will require the administration to be delegated to those not in the organization‘s typical IT centers. End-users as security agents: ―Users will become the masters of their documents, not only in terms of the documents' management, but more so in terms of securing those documents.‖

Benefits Defining ESN is important, but organizations considering the technology want to know why they should implement it. Several high-level potential benefits to using ESN are provided by Andriole. He divides them into four areas from an intra-organizational perspective; collaboration/communication, knowledge management, rapid application development, and training (2010, p. 69). Collaboration/communication What ESN can really do is make organizations more horizontal or decentralized where employees are empowered and equipped to carry out their work with minimal supervision. Many authors recognize this as a positive and even inevitable direction for organizations2. ESN facilitates the delegation of tasks to the lowest levels. For example,

1 Curry and English are specifically referring to Microsoft SharePoint, but they apply in the context of

ESN. Also, SharePoint will be presented later in the paper as it is the chosen ESN solution for the AWC. 2 (Roberts, 2010), (Landry, Mahesh, & Hartmann, 2005), (Nagle & Sammon, 2009), (Chui, Miller, & Robers, 2009),

(Modigliani, 2010), (von Kortzfleisch, Mergel, Manoucheri, & Schaarschmidt, n.d.), (McAfee, 2006), (Tredinnick, 2006), (Schneckenberg, 2009), (Tapscott & Williams, 2007), (Curry & English, 2008)


in regards to meetings, workers can coordinate timings, book a meeting room, publish an agenda that other attendees can modify, and subsequently publish meeting minutes, all using ESN. Knowledge management Knowledge is generally categorized as either explicit or tacit. ―Explicit knowledge deals with more objective, rational, and technical knowledge.‖ Conversely tacit knowledge ―is usually in the domain of subjective, cognitive, and experiential learning (Turban & Volonino, 2010, p. 394).‖ Explicit knowledge is easily codified, documented, and passed on. Tacit knowledge on the other hand is intimately linked with individuals and is often lost through attrition (Newman & Thomas, 2009). ESN facilitates knowledge management; moving knowledge from the tacit domain into the explicit. For example, discussion forums allow personnel to document lessons learned in an informal way for other employees to review at a later date. Rapid application development Companies know that IT systems can provide great returns, but they also know that their implementation can be expensive and risky. IT projects have resulted in the financial ruin of some organizations, for example, FoxMeyer Drugs (Scott, n.d.). Web 2.0 allows organizations to develop their own business solutions because even basic users can be ―developers‖. This also contributes to user buy-in. Referring to Web 2.0 technologies, Chui et al. state that ―while they are inherently disruptive and often challenge an organization and its culture, they are not technically complex to implement (2009).‖ Couple that with the fact that ESN technologies often fit within an organization‘s existing IT infrastructure (e.g. the interface is commonly through a standard Web-browser such as Firefox or Internet Explorer), and that upgrade costs are resultantly limited (Casarez, Cripe, & Weckerle, 2009), and application development with ESN can be a smart business decision. Training In a similar vein to rapid application development, organizations can forego expensive contractors and courses and carry out training in-house. As an example, a company that specializes in management consulting could establish a wiki containing information on the initial customer interview process. As the wiki grows with more and more useful information that is coherently organized, new employees could be directed to familiarize themselves with the necessary material in preparation for follow-up on-the-job training. One important note regarding the benefits of ESN is that a robust search facility is a key requirement. It is useful to have a wiki on dealing with customer complaints at a help-desk center, but if employees are not able to find the necessary information when looking for it, the wiki is useless. Newman et al. agree; ―the key to developing a thriving Enterprise 2.0-based information management ecosystem is discovery. Information assets and people must be discoverable. … Knowledge workers should be able to


search all enterprise information assets from one location. Information that is not discoverable is useless (2009).‖ Casarez et al. also concur; ―search is the key to discovery and thus to augmented value for the information held in the system, to accelerated circulation, and to lower replication (2009).‖ Certainly there are benefits to an ESN implementation, but the passive installation of the software will not necessarily provide a return. There are challenges to overcome and management must understand and proactively deal with them. Based on the literature review, it is useful to categorize the challenges into four areas: the people, the organization, business processes, and the solution itself. The People Component People can be a potential point of failure for an ESN implementation. Other aspects of an IT solution such as its usability, quality, and supporting infrastructure can all be acceptable, and even exceptional, but if management and users don‘t accept and adopt the solution, it can be a financial and competitive sinkhole for an organization. Employees often fear change, sometimes justifiably. Consider how IT can either ―de-skill‖ or ―up-skill‖ jobs. ―Call centers have used expert support systems – large computer programs and databases, which recommend the correct advice for a problem – to permit low-skilled employees to provide technical advice (Landry, Mahesh, & Hartmann, 2005).‖ Landry et al. go on to say that de-skilled positions are often eliminated over time. Uncertainties like job security result in people defending against change, which is counterproductive as those who readily adapt are more likely to keep their jobs. Managers must be able to discern what employees are experiencing in a change process and facilitate and encourage the change where necessary, even in the face of employee resistance. Interestingly, ESN technologies provide many tools to help management better understand how employees are dealing with change; for example, feedback forums, discussion groups, and usage monitoring. Grouping People The first thing to understand is what can be expected from groups and individuals in the organization during the transition to ESN. In a general change model, Musselwhite and Ingram categorize individuals into three groups: conservers; pragmatists, and originators (Luecke, 2003, pp. 72-74). Conservers defend the current way of doing things. They prefer predictability and approach change with caution. Pragmatists recognize the requirement for change, but are only supportive when they feel the outcome of the change will be positive. Finally originators welcome change and risk, but can be impractical and miss important details. All of these types of people are important in any change effort. Without originators, change may not be initiated, pragmatists ensure change is favorable, and conservers ensure some measure of stability. Each will have a greater impact at various stages of the change adoption process. Rogers categorized individuals as to when they will adopt the change in the implementation


over time. Figure 4 below shows the five categories, as well as their distribution for adoption along the change timeline.

Figure 4: Adopter category distribution (Turban & Volonino, 2010, p. 527)

We can show a relationship between the Musselwhite and Ingram and Rogers models to see how the two align:

Figure 5: Relationship between Musselwhite and Ingram and Rogers models

Originators Pragmatists

Conservers

Innovators Early Adopters Early Majority Late Majority

Laggards

Time

2.5% 13.5% 34% 34% 16%

Innovators Early Adopters

Early Majority

Late Majority

Laggards


This visual depiction allows us to see how various individuals contribute or participate along the implementation timeline. Management can use this relationship to advance the change initiative. For example, early on in the process, management may try to identify originators to get the process underway. As the solution approaches ―critical mass‖ where ―enough individuals in the organization have adopted the new idea so that the idea is commonplace and self-sustaining‖ (Curry & English, 2008), the concentration of effort will be on the conservers. Effect of Demographics One interesting trend to note regarding the categorization of change adopters is how age and education are correlated to the various groups. While we have to be careful about over-generalizing, a trend has been observed by several authors3 as shown in Figure 6. In general, the earliest adopters tend to be younger and more educated.

Figure 6: Influence of age and education

Individual Change Models People can be categorized as to how they will accept or adopt an ESN solution, but each individual experiencing the change will go through several stages themselves. A classic change process model by Lewin describes three stages: unfreezing, change, and (re)freezing, as shown in Figure 7 (Turban & Volonino, 2010, pp. 549-550).

3 (Nagle & Sammon, 2009), (Turban & Volonino, 2010, p. 526), (Newman & Thomas, 2009), (Barnes & Barnes,

2009), (Schneckenberg, 2009), (Donston, 2008), (Casarez, Cripe, & Weckerle, 2009)

Originators Pragmatists

Conservers

Innovators Early Adopters Early Majority Late Majority

Laggards

Increase in age Decrease in education


Figure 7: Lewin‘s three-stage change process

The three stages are aptly named, describing how an individual goes from one way of doing things to another. Unfreezing is process of abandoning an outdated way of doing things. Another common term for this process is ―unlearning‖, coined by Becker as ―the process by which individuals and organizations acknowledge and release prior learning (including assumptions and mental frameworks) in order to accommodate new information and behaviors‖ (2010). Change is where the person learns the new way of doing things. And (re)freezing is where the new way of doing things is locked in and stabilized as the norm. Many factors influence how the change will progress, including a person‘s feelings and expectations about the outcome, their understanding of the change requirement, and the change support in place (Becker, 2010). Managers must recognize and foster this change process to ensure a successful ESN implementation. A similar change model proposed by Boudreau and Robey that is specific to IT is useful because it recognizes that change in the IT realm rarely follows what was planned. Specifically, the way an IT solution is used by employees will often involve unanticipated methods for getting the job done (Boudreau & Robey, 2005). This is particularly pertinent in the context of Web 2.0 because there are so many undefined ways and permutations that the various services can be developed and used. Figure 8 shows the Boudreau and Robey IT change model in a fashion similar to the Lewin model of Figure 7.

Unfreezing

Change (Re)Freezing


Figure 8: Boudreau and Robey IT change model

The authors describe the three stages of the IT change model as follows:

Inertia: Limited use of a technology; users either avoid using the technology or engage in perfunctory usage.

Improvised learning: Learning situated in practice, initiated by users, and implemented without any predetermined structure, schedule, or method.

Reinvention: Unintended uses of technology in which users compensate for their limited knowledge of the system and perceived system deficiencies by developing ―tweaks‘ and ‗workarounds.

Organizations have to recognize and cultivate the general change process as described by Lewin while also giving some freedom for individuals to use ESN in ways not necessarily planned or anticipated as described by Boudreau and Robey. Social Ties Another factor that will affect how individuals adopt ESN is the social influences or ‗ties‘ that are present. Several authors have recognized the importance of Granovetter‘s classification of strong and weak ties in influencing change and innovation4. Strong ties are the social interactions people have with their closest peers. Among this group, norms are formed and any innovations are quickly adopted by the group. The problem is that innovations are hindered from progressing outside the group. This is where weak ties become important. Weak ties are those social influences outside of the closest

4 (Schneckenberg, 2009), (Newman & Thomas, 2009), (Hossain & de Silva, 2009), (McAfee A. P., 2009)

Inertia

Improvised Learning

Reinvention


peers. Due to their nature, weak ties do not readily pass innovation, which is unfortunate because regarding the value of weak ties, Granovetter states, ―intuitively speaking, this means that whatever is to be diffused can reach a larger number of people, and traverse greater social distance, when passed through weak ties rather than strong (Newman & Thomas, 2009).‖ The more organizations can strengthen weak ties, the more innovation can be disseminated among the various groups and individuals of the business. Unified IT Acceptance Model Venkatesh et al. effectively capture the concepts presented in this section in their paper ―User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View‖. They describe individuals, including demographics, and how they adopt new IT solutions, as well as the influence of social ties and other ―facilitating conditions‖. Their work provides a succinct model that managers can apply to ―assess the likelihood of success for new technology introductions and helps them understand the drivers of acceptance in order to proactively design interventions (2003).‖ The model can be used in the AWC for the ESN implementation. In the paper the authors ―(1) review user acceptance literature and discuss eight prominent models, (2) empirically compare the eight models and their extensions, (3) formulate a unified model that integrates elements across the eight models, and (4) empirically validate the unified model.‖ The resultant model (Figure 9) is adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2003).

Figure 9: Venkatesh et al. IT acceptance model


In the model, Venkatesh et al. conclude that there are four constructs that ―play a

significant role as direct determinants of user acceptance and usage behaviour‖:

Performance expectancy: the degree to which an individual believes that using the system will help him or her to attain gains in job performance.

Effort expectancy: the degree of ease associated with the use of the system.

Social influence: the degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new system.

Facilitating conditions: the degree to which an individual believes that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system.

Venkatesh et al. also observed four ―moderators‖ that influence the four constructs: gender; age; experience; voluntariness (the degree to which the use of the IT solution is or is not mandatory) (2003). Note that not all constructs are necessarily influenced by all four moderators. As shown in Figure 9, the performance expectancy construct is only influenced by the gender and age moderators while the effort expectancy construct is influenced by all four moderators. It is more difficult to implement an ESN solution based on the moderators because unlike the four constructs, the moderators could influence user acceptance positively or negatively depending on the circumstances. For example, while younger and less experienced workers may generally have a more positive attitude under the performance expectancy construct, they were also more subject to the social influences construct, which could be negative. Management Perspective So far we have concentrated on how employees in general will be affected by an ESN implementation and conditions that influence their acceptance of the change. While the rank and file represent the majority of employees in an organization, as businesses move to a more decentralized structure, management will have to consider how their roles will change as a result of an ESN implementation. ESN allows workers to collaborate, self-learn, and self-direct to a greater degree. ―Managers will need to adapt to a new role, more similar to that of an orchestra conductor rather than a shift supervisor (Landry, Mahesh, & Hartmann, 2005).‖ Managers will have to work with subordinates in a more transformational way characterized by trust, integrity, and empowerment (Lam, 2008). Turban et al. take this idea further by encouraging managers to take on the role of a champion. ―A champion is the person who will promote the benefits of the new system across different levels of the organization on an ongoing basis. … Often a champion will naturally emerge to sponsor a new system; other times, it will be necessary to appoint and cultivate a champion to fight for the new system (2010, p. 528).‖ While the thought of relinquishing control or actively encouraging employees to take on more is scary for some managers, those that recognize the new order and take advantage to effect greater change in an organization will see success in their careers.


The Organizational Component The implementation of an ESN system will not necessarily result in the realization of the potential benefits. Many authors recognize that organizations need to use more than the ―build it and they will come‖ approach (McAfee A. P., 2009), (Schneckenberg, 2009) (Chui, Miller, & Robers, 2009). Companies must understand why users contribute to ESN systems, and how they can establish an environment where people are ready to collaborate. On the surface, one has to question why employees would contribute to an ESN at all. According to Von Kortzfleisch et al., ―sharing knowledge takes time, and sometimes can undermine the source‘s position (n.d.).‖ Wasko and Faraj state ―why individuals help strangers in these electronic networks is not well understood: there is no immediate benefit to the contributor, and free-riders are able to acquire the same knowledge as everyone else (2005).‖ Consider the 90:9:1 rule that applies to social media sites on the Internet (Nielsen, 2006). The rule states that only 1% of people make significant contributions to a social media site, 9% make minimal contributions, and 90% make no contributions at all (what Nielsen refers to as ―lurkers‖). Similar ratios have been reported as the 1% rule (Arthur, 2006) and the 20-80 rule (Turban & Volonino, 2010, p. 313). These statistics create the idea that contribution rates are innate in group dynamics. Perhaps this is true on the Internet; however employees in a company have much closer ties than people on the Internet. Employees have a common purpose, operate under the same business processes, and come together socially. Nahapiet and Ghoshal provide several conditions that foster the contribution of employees to an ESN. They suggest ―that the combination and exchange of knowledge is facilitated when (1) individuals are motivated to engage in its exchange, (2) there are structural links or connections between individuals (structural capital), (3) individuals have the cognitive capability to understand and apply the knowledge (cognitive capital), and (4) their relationships have strong, positive characteristics (relational capital) (Wasko & Samer, 2005).‖ Wasko and Samer expand this idea and provide several hypotheses linking people in an organization to knowledge contribution. A high-level illustration of their ideas is shown in Figure 10.


Figure 10: Individual motivations, social capital, and knowledge contribution Organizations have several tools at their disposal to encourage employees to contribute in an ESN. Organizational culture, structure, and governance can be formulated to foster a collaborative ESN environment. Cultural Change For the return on ESN to be maximized, an organization has to foster particular cultural traits. One of the key areas is openness and transparency. Fear is natural when talking about being more open in an organization. Managers may fear a loss of power and control, executives may fear a breach of security or loss of intellectual property, and employees may fear criticism or even reprisals for being open. These fears all have validity, but that does not negate the fact that the real power of ESN is through open collaboration. ―Culturally, organizations must be willing to embrace transparency and let go of control. Organizations must trust their workforce and realize that the benefits of loosening governance over information outweighs the risks (Newman & Thomas, 2009).‖ The people using an ESN system have to overcome their fears and harness the potential of ESN to be competitive in an industry or community. One way to foster a culture that is conducive to ESN is through rewards and recognition. ―Old beliefs that hording information to foster one‘s own value to the organization has [sic] to be overcome. People need to be rewarded for sharing and for collaborating. Incentives need to be in place to give people a reason to share what they

Individual Motivations Structural Capital Cognitive Capital

Relational Capital

Reputation

Enjoy Helping

Centrality

Self-rated Expertise

Tenure in the Field

Commitment

Reciprocity

Knowledge Contribution


know and to make their challenge not hording information, but rather acquiring new knowledge to continue to share (Newman & Thomas, 2009).‖ While intrinsic incentives, those that are inherent in the role a person plays and the job they do, are important, here we are referring to extrinsic rewards. These are overt and often publicized gestures from management that encourage a particular behaviour. Examples include monetary rewards, advancement, and public displays of gratitude. If management and executives want to foster a new way of doing business, such as that resulting from the effective use of ESN, they need to support those ideas with an proper rewards and recognition program. One concern that may hinder cultural evolution toward openness and transparency is security. This concern is real, particularly for a military organization like the AWC. Figure 11 below shows the biggest concerns of organizations implementing Web 2.0. Five of the top eight concerns, including the top 4, all have to do with security.

Figure 11: Web 2.0 concerns (Donston, 2008)

Clearly security is a concern for organizations. However as McClure puts it, ―companies need to recognize the fact that the benefits that new technologies afford are typically accompanied by challenges. Web 2.0 is no different in this regard than any other technology offering (2008).‖ Many people attribute the WikiLeaks scandal in the U.S. Department of Defence to the WikiLeaks site and the associated Web 2.0 technology. While the technology may have facilitated the ease of publication of the sensitive


material as well as its proliferation, the breach in security was most likely due to the actions of Private Bradley Manning (Burns, 2011). Employees generally understand that it is morally wrong to steal IP from a company or to otherwise expose the material to those that should not have access. Policies are in place to explicitly state as much; certainly in a military organization like the AWC. The technology is not the problem. If there is a problem, it is with people, and that problem needs to be contained through proper policy, education, and enforcement. Newman and Thomas summarize it nicely saying, ―Enterprise 2.0 by its nature encourages the sharing of information. You might assume that this openness would mean that security was not critical. This is by no means the case. Conversely many people think about security as locking data away so people can‘t access it. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. … In fact, strong security allows us to share information more freely (2009).‖ Security is not only a concern from an organizational perspective; individual employees and groups also want to ensure the system can safeguard certain information. While openness and transparency can be a positive thing, there are times when information has to be segregated, even within company walls. For example, research and development centers may want the capabilities provided by an ESN to facilitate collaboration within the group, but they may not want members from payroll seeing what ideas are in the early stages of development. ―The matter of security goes beyond simple authentication—am I who I say I am?— and privacy control—who can see what information,‖ says Frank. In addition to authentication, he notes that other important aspects of security include permissions/access control (What can you see and do in the environment?), an audit trail (What happened over time? When was a document emailed? What comments were included on it?), and monitoring (the ability for users to keep up-to-date on new activity) (McClure, 2008).‖ Restler and Woolis see a requirement for three ―spaces of opportunity‖ that help an organisation realise the potential to work differently (and better) and do new work, some of which may result in new ways to extract greater value from organisational intelligence. There are three such spaces:

Private Space: participants must be community members; activities defined by and for members.

Privileged Space: Accessible by a subset of members, under conditions and terms defined by the community.

Public Space: content available to all, potentially activities open to the public (Restler & Woolis, 2007).‖

Another concern along the line of security is the inappropriate use of the technology. Stories of online harassment or inappropriate language and communication abound on the Internet. However Roberts argues that the "frame of reference is the public Internet, where people can join Facebook under a false name and publish whatever they want. In contrast, companies always require full names be used, thereby mitigating inappropriate use. … On the rare occasion when there is inappropriate use, "you deal with it under the employee code of conduct." Among the 10 adopting organizations whose managers


were interviewed for this article, none reported egregious inappropriate use (2010).‖ McAfee and Chui et al. agree that anonymity must not be allowed in an ESN (2009). An effective way for an organization to encourage the cultural change required in an ESN environment is for management and executives to actively participate. ―Senior leadership's endorsement and modeling [sic] through personal engagement is key to shifting the groups or organisation's thought and work habits (Restler & Woolis, 2007).‖ Newman et al. provide some ideas: ―instead of writing meeting minutes in a Word document, managers should post them in the wiki and email the link. Instead of emailing status updates, managers should blog about their status and encourage their teams to subscribe to the blog‘s RSS feed (Newman & Thomas, 2009).‖ If employees see the most senior people adopting the ESN solution, they will too. Structural Change A cultural shift can help maximize the return on an ESN implementation, but a cultural change toward openness coupled with an analogous structural change can compound benefits further. The structural change needed has been described using many terms including vertical to horizontal, taller to flatter, and centralized to decentralized. All these terms label a hierarchy where decisions, responsibility, power, etc. are delegated to the lower ranks. Contrary to Web 2.0 technologies, ―the problem with hierarchy is that it simply doesn‘t facilitate collaborative work … When hierarchy dominates the culture, corporate commissars do all the thinking, control access to information, and tell everyone what to do. Under these circumstances, collaboration is an unnatural act (Luecke, 2003).‖ One of the major hurdles to collaborative working with ESN in a vertical hierarchy is that information is ―stovepiped‖, which inhibits the weak social ties that Granovetter state are needed for real innovation (Schneckenberg, 2009). Information ―is one of the greatest assets a company has. … Interestingly, most of this information is scattered across divisions within secured systems that conform to proprietary standards and to which most employees don‘t have access. In other words, data is trapped (Newman & Thomas, 2009)‖:


Figure 12: Data access barriers

ESN can break down the information barriers and facilitate a horizontal hierarchy. ―Malone (2004) focuses on the rapidly falling cost of communication. … He argues that low cost and pervasive communication technologies will support four decentralized organization structures: loose hierarchies, democracies, external markets, and internal markets that will shift management from ―command and control‖ to ―co-ordinate and cultivate (Landry, Mahesh, & Hartmann, 2005).‖ Newman et al. agree stating ―enterprise 2.0 allows workers to bypass much of the corporate hierarchies to complete tasks. Through informal networks, workers collaborate, seek recommendations, and innovate. Enterprise 2.0 embraces the informal network as well as the transparency that is inherent to making information and people discoverable (2009).‖ Change takes time however; this is particularly true for a structural hierarchical change from vertical to horizontal, and even truer for a military organization where command structures have been ingrained for centuries. The best thing a company can do is lay the foundations for hierarchical change, and let the change develop and evolve over time. ―The pervasive nature of Web 2.0 technologies can be used to enhance a gradual transformation of companies towards more decentralised organisational structures and to reinforce a lateralisation of decision-making (Schneckenberg, 2009).‖ Luecke states that there are ―two ways to overcome the problem of hierarchy. The first is to push the organization toward a more decentralized business model in which individual units have greater autonomy. … If that organizational makeover is not possible in the short run, then follow the second course: create opportunities for collaboration between people in different units and at different levels. For example, set up cross- functional teams to deal with key issues such as employee benefits or improvement of processes that span several departments (2003).‖


Governance Change Any cultural or structural change is not complete without a governance change. The term ―governance‖ has many different meanings and applications, from rules that people follow, to the authority under which a person has responsibility for a group of people. In the context of ESN and organizations, we will define governance as the rules, formal or otherwise, that dictate the way people perform their job. This definition can be further compartmentalized; for example, information governance tells people how information is stored, secured, or distributed, whereas behavioural governance lays out what is and is not appropriate behaviour and use of the ESN. Governance can either support a collaborative ESN environment, or it can inhibit it. It depends on the rigidity of the governance. If policies are very restrictive, people are limited in how they can work and may not be able to innovate to a great degree. Alternatively, if governance is loose, people may not know where to go for valuable information and resources because of a chaotic environment. ―There is a school of thought that governance of Enterprise 2.0 solutions hinders innovation. Governance strives to bring order and sustainability to what would otherwise be a chaotic environment of ad hoc information creation and sharing. But authoritarian, centralized governance models will almost surely suppress the emergent outcomes one hopes to achieve with Enterprise 2.0 (Newman & Thomas, 2009).‖ Curry and English also feel there is a balance between the two extremes, as illustrated in Figure 13 (2008):

Figure 13: Governance extremes

Governance has to be worked on by organizations to balance the need to control processes and information but also not to overly restrict the way people work. Two methodologies that may be useful in defining governance are business process reengineering (BPR) and business process management (BPM). BPR ―is a methodology in which an organization fundamentally and radically changes its business processes to achieve dramatic improvement (Turban & Volonino, 2010, p. 605).‖ BPM is a similar but less radical process ―that includes methods and tools to support the design, analysis, implementation, management, and optimization of operation business processes (Turban & Volonino, 2010, p. 539).‖ Either or both of these methodologies


may be useful in setting organizational governance depending on how mature or ―close‖ the organization is to a working ESN environment. One key aspect of BPR and BPM that is articulated by Turban et al., and is particularly relevant to an ESN implementation, is to look for ways the solution can be used in an organization and develop processes to suit. ―When it comes to restructuring or redesign, the traditional process of looking at problems first and then seeking technology solutions for them may need to be reversed. A new approach is first to recognize powerful solutions that make redesign and BPR possible, and then to seek the processes that can be helped by such solutions (2010).‖ Part of developing governance in an organization is defining taxonomy. ―A taxonomy is a system of definitions that are used to describe, categorize, recognize, organize, and manage information (Curry & English, 2008).‖ However, similar to governance, an organization‘s taxonomy cannot be so rigid as to prevent employees from labeling information how they like. With ESN, and using the taxonomy as a base, employees will develop what is known as a ―folksonomy‖. ―Folksonomy refers to user-created taxonomies of information. A special feature of folksonomies is that they don‘t have a hierarchy as in professionally developed taxonomies with controlled vocabularies, and hence they‘re inherently open ended (Murugesan, 2007).‖ ―The term folksonomy was coined by Thomas Vander Wal to describe the emergent classification structures that arise as users ‗tag‘ information for their own ends (Tredinnick, 2006).‖ Organizations want to develop a high-level taxonomy that forms a basis for users to construct their own folksonomies. Over time it is anticipated that terminology will be transposed from folkonomies to taxonomy once it is broadly accepted by the community. The Solution Itself Employees can be in the right frame of mind for an ESN solution, and the organization can have appropriate structures and rule sets in place, but it is also vital that the solution itself will meet the needs of the organization and its employees in a way that encourages its use. One of the key differences between ESN and traditional enterprise solutions is that ESN need not be a radical or cataclysmic change to how business is run. If an organization implements a new human resource (HR) management program, employees will switch over to the new software in a generally short period of time, and it may not necessarily parallel the old way of managing HR. The organization has invested in the new software program and executives are eager to see a return. Employees are not given a choice; they are mandated to use the new system. By contrast, ―Enterprise 2.0 is very much an organic, viral movement. What we mean by this is that it‘s not being introduced and installed in businesses from the top down. Enterprise 2.0 is being brought to businesses by the users and adoption is happening from the bottom-up (Newman & Thomas, 2009).‖ With ESN, there need not be any aspects of the solution that employees are directed to use; in fact, there are many benefits to gradual changes where the ESN implementation starts small and evolves over time through employee development. ―A key theme that emerges from the discussions is that many of these technologies start at a company‘s


grassroots level. Because many of these tools are easy to implement, small groups of interested individuals can launch informal pilots to test their viability. … Given that ease, it‘s not surprising that many discussion participants say grassroots efforts are often as effective as formal pilot programs businesses are using (McKinsey Quarterly, 2007).‖ Newman and Thomas recommend that organizations ―adopt Enterprise 2.0 at your own pace. Consider it as replacing parts of a system as they get worn and outdated. Pick a few technologies to experiment with and try it out. Install some open-source software and see how it works (2009).‖ Casarez et al. describe a ―contributory feedback loop (Figure 14)‖ that ―starts with individuals extracting value from their own submissions. Their publicly sharing these contributions yields value to observers, who are then moved to participate, adding to the original contributor‘s value. As participation reaches critical mass, network effects kick in, making the organization smarter with each new user. (2009).‖

Figure 14: Contributory feedback loop

While value can be ―grown‖ in this manner, some feel it is better to provide a level of value from the start that users can expand upon, or alternatively, look where users are seeing value in the ESN solution, and scale it up. ―One of the most surprising aspects of Enterprise 2.0 technologies is that even though they‘re almost completely amorphous and egalitarian, they appear to spread most quickly when there‘s some initial structure and hierarchy (McAfee A. P., 2006).‖ Chui et al. add that ―our research shows the applications that drive the most value through participatory technologies often aren't


those that management expects. Efforts go awry when organizations try to dictate their preferred uses of the technologies … rather than observing what works and then scaling it up (2009).‖ So there is a balance of two extremes; dictating all aspects of how people use ESN and risking resistance, or allowing free reign and realizing a solution that nobody uses because there is no value. One way organizations can provide value for employees by incorporating the ESN solution into employees‘ day-to-day activities. ―A higher level of [ESN] usage is found at companies that encourage it by using tactics such as integrating the tools into existing workflows (Bughin, Manyika, & Miller, 2008).‖ If an employee has to visit an ESN site to find the agenda, and subsequently, the minutes of a meeting, as well as further discussion in a subject forum, they may begin to see the utility of the technology. They may then make an effort to learn how a meeting framework is put together in the ESN solution, and they may carry out future meetings using a similar construct. In this way, the use of ESN grows virally. Another tactic to provide value to users is to incorporate the solution into the existing way of doing business. Casarez et al. feel that ―all enabling technologies must fit within the existing infrastructures that are already in place for each organization (2009).‖ There is no reason that ESN has to necessarily change the way people do business. It makes sense that the closer ESN follows the existing workflow and organizational structure, the easier it will be for users to adopt the solution. ―Technology is a tool used to meet the organization's business objectives and not an end in itself. … So when establishing technology governance, look for a successful governance process from elsewhere in the organization and emulate it (Curry & English, 2008).‖ Consider employees that are subject to a quality system governed by procedures; those procedures can be transcribed to the ESN. The procedures would be referenced online, but other than that, would not represent a change in how individuals follow the guidelines. An advantage would be that the procedures are much more dynamic. For example, procedural changes could be updated as soon as they are approved, and employees would have a short time lag to being informed, particularly with a RSS facility. As well as considering what the solution will look like when it is in place, organizations must also consider how they will transition to the new solution. There are numerous implementation models in existence, including the Microsoft Solutions Framework, Microsoft Operations Framework, the waterfall process model, and the spiral process model, as well as several from the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) (Curry & English, 2008). Turban et al. classify the many models into four approaches (Figure 15) they refer to as the four P‘s of implementation (2010, pp. 532-533):

Plunge: Where the new system is put in place, and the old system is retired at the same time.

Parallel: Where the new and the old systems are both maintained for a period until the organization is confident enough in the new system to retire the old.

Phased: Where the new system is implemented in a piecemeal fashion, eventually retiring the old system in a similar fashion.


Pilot: Where the new system is trialed in a part of the organization in an attempt to identify and ―weed out‖ any problems before it is rolled out across the rest of the organization.

PLUNGE Organization

PARALLEL Organization

PILOT Organization

PHASED Organization

Figure 15: The four P's of implementation (Turban & Volonino, 2010)

Version 1 Version 2

Version 3

Version 4

Time 1 Time 2

Time 3

Time 4

Dept. 1 Dept. 2 Dept. 3 Dept. 4

Old System

New System

New System

Old System

New System

Old System

Day 0 Day 1

Old System New System


There is already a SharePoint implementation plan in place for the MoD (described later on in the paper), but it is not clear if it follows any third-party model. It uses a combination of the phased and piloted approaches. There is room in the plan for organizations to carry out the implementation in ways that best suit their unique operations. This paper will not seek to define any specific model, but rather will identify areas where the existing plan follows best practices as defined in the literature, and where the AWC can better tailor the implementation to suit the specifics of the organization. The Air Warfare Centre ESN Implementation

Overview The ESN implementation process is detailed in the MoD publication ―MOSS Adoption Project – MOSS Adoption Handbook‖ (Ministry of Defence, 2011). This document is a guide to SharePoint implementation for Information Management (IM) groups across the MoD. The term MOSS is an acronym for ―Microsoft Office SharePoint Server‖ and may lead people to believe it is the core of the solution. However, MOSS is only one component of the entire SharePoint solution, and in fact is a relatively minor one. Windows SharePoint Services (WSS) represents the core of the SharePoint solution. In addition, SharePoint has many external enabling technologies such as a database server, a Web server, and the Windows operating system (Williams, 2007, pp. 15-18). The handbook describes 6 stages for the SharePoint implementation as shown in Figure 16. The major activities of each phase are:

Phase 1 – Project start-up: Establish a project team and baseline the organization‘s IM readiness.

Phase 2 – Build IM readiness: ―raise the level of IM Maturity in the Unit to the appropriate readiness level.‖

Phase 3 – Gate: A go/no-go decision point for the project board.

Phase 4 – Transition to MOSS: Service adoption and training.

Phase 5 – Project closure: Project closure activities.

Phase 6 – Exploitation: Continued use and evolution of the solution.


Figure 16: MoD SharePoint implementation plan

Phase two of the implementation; ―Build IM Readiness‖, represents the majority of the effort. The purpose of the phase is to raise the IM readiness of the organization to a suitable level for the ESN adoption. This phase is split into five work-streams as follows:

Work-stream 1 – Organization: The establishment and composition of the IM organization, including personnel and processes.

Work-stream 2 – Information: The design and configuration of information holdings in preparation for migration to the new ESN solution.

Work-stream 3 – Ways of working: the development of standards for how people will work under the new ESN solution.

Work-stream 4 – Users: The communication of the plan to employees, including associated training.

Work-stream 5 – Process: Process improvement. The implementation and handbook are supported by a MOSS Adoption Toolkit. This Intranet site provides guidance and resources for the organization to help advance the phases or work-streams of the project. A screen shot of the toolkit for ―Build IM readiness – Information‖ is shown in appendix A. The toolkit provides resources in a consistent fashion for all of the phases and work-streams (Ministry of Defence, n.d.).


SharePoint 2007 The AWC already knows that the specific software for the ESN solution is Microsoft SharePoint 2007. This has been handed down by the larger MoD IM group. SharePoint content is accessed through a Web interface and provides users with many services as shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Microsoft SharePoint 2007 Services (Ministry of Defence, n.d.)

Other features of the SharePoint solution include: Security: ESN security is a major concern for both management and users. To protect the organization, its employees, and its information holdings, SharePoint provides a vast array of security controls as shown in Figure 18.


Figure 18: Security controls (Williams, 2007, p. 146)

Search and discovery: Several authors stated the importance of search and discovery in an ESN implementation, and SharePoint provides a thorough search capability. ―At a minimum, you expect to be able to search for a file based on properties, such as the filename and who created it. SharePoint can also search inside documents so you can find the spreadsheet that lists all your software product keys even if you gave the file some ridiculous name, like Ice Cream Flavors (Williams, 2007, p. 301).‖ Monitoring and reporting: SharePoint provides a monitoring and reporting capability so that the organization can determine which pages are and are not being used regularly (Williams, 2007, p. 387).

Site Owners (Full Control)

Quick Deploy Users

(Limited Access)

Viewers (View Onlyl)

Restricted Readers

(Restricted Read)

Site Visitors (Read)

Site Members (Contribute)

Designer (Design)

Approver (Approve)

Hierarchy Manager (Manage Hierarchy)

Full Control

Add, edit, and delete items

Apply Themes and Borders

Manage lists

Create subsites

Manage permissions

Apply Style Sheets

View items and pages

Browse user information

Override check out

Approve items

Browse site directories

Create alerts

Edit personal information

Open and view items

Manage Web site

Open and view pages

Open


Implementation Details Many aspects of the implementation and new ways of working set out in the MOSS Adoption Handbook and toolkit are relevant to this paper. All of the concepts and utilities described in this section are from the handbook (Ministry of Defence, 2011): Information Governance The handbook recognizes the importance of information governance. It states that ―whilst new IM technologies introduce great freedoms and flexibility for the management of information it is essential that a Governance Structure is implemented that is robust but not constraining so that information is managed, assured and exploited to maximum effect.‖

The handbook goes on to describe how the ESN solution is meant to hold ―Work in Progress‖ (WIP); those files that are living documents or are in a draft state. Once a document is in a final state, it is moved to the record store; a Microsoft Windows NTFS file structure. Once a document is in the record store, no further changes should be made to the document. If changes are required, the new document should be reintroduced as a draft with a later version number. The NTFS file structure is an extension of the ESN solution so that records can be linked and searched from the ESN Web interface. As an example of how information governance works, someone organizing a meeting might generate a meeting agenda, and after completion, meeting minutes. Once the agenda and minutes are approved, they can be moved to the record store and can be Web-linked from the ESN. The MOSS Adoption Handbook also requires the iHub to ―implement a series of processes designed to efficiently and effectively administrate the information required by the unit in the conduct of business.‖ There is limited guidance provided in the handbook, however there are generic processes available in the adoption toolkit that units can build on; for example, the process for changing an ESN site layout. Organizational Structure The handbook spells out the importance of an organizational structure that supports ESN. ―A key element of the preparation of information is the design of an appropriate and focussed [sic] collaborative working structure – best designed to cater for teams or groups of people working together possibly on specific functions or outputs or as cross-functional teams.‖ Although there is guidance on what collaborative working means to the MoD, and there are tools to help design and build team sites, individual units are free to structure their organization as they feel is appropriate given the unit‘s mission, outputs, and IT resources.


Training Training is provided to support the ESN and its use. People in key IM roles will be trained using a structured course away from the workplace. Most other users will be trained using a computer-based course. ―Users must do the IM Matters elearning and pass the associated assessment prior to the end of this phase. Four weeks after passing the assessment, users will be sent (by email) a request to complete the DIMSMM User Survey for which they need to achieve Level 2 in order to gain their Defence IM Passport.‖ Only after the Passport has been obtained will users be able to use the ESN. Business Processes The handbook provides general and conceptual guidance on the importance of developing effective business processes. ―The development of good practice in ―Ways of Working‖ (WoW) is essential in developing efficient and effective IM and IX [information exploitation]. It is only with high quality processes and mechanisms that we can give some structure to the manner in which we conduct our business.‖ More tangible guidance is also offered; ―units should try to identify business processes that could be improved through use of the MOSS capabilities. To assist in this, units are strongly advised to look at areas of best practice that have already been put in place by early MOSS adopters to identify examples that could be used directly.‖ This parallels the McAfee and Chui et al. idea of seeing what processes work well in the ESN solution and scaling them up. Security The adoption handbook conveys the importance of security on the ESN. ―Units will also need to define their requirements for Permission Groups. Getting this right is hugely important as getting it wrong could lead to a large management overhead for iHub staff and potentially giving access to sensitive information to unauthorised people.‖ Despite the numerous categorizations of permission groups possible in the SharePoint solution (Figure 18), MoD has decided to implement only four of them: iHub admin [hierarchy manager], team admin [site owner], member, and reader. The rights associated with each group are shown in appendix B. ESN Growth and Evolution Newman and Thomas expressed how ESN should be developed from the bottom up rather than the top down, i.e. that the solution will develop more from the rank and file than it will from management or executive direction. In a similar vein, the adoption handbook states, ―it is unlikely that full exploitation of the capability will be immediately achieved on ‗Go Live‘. This is recognised across the commercial sector - rather the best results are often achieved through a natural period of growth and evolution.‖ While the idea that the solution should grow from the bottom up is expressed, this is tempered


with the statement, ―whilst the growth will inherently be natural and evolutionary in style - it can and should still be guided.‖ The handbook is not specific on how this guidance should be fulfilled, but the statement shows that the MoD feels management needs to be fully engaged in the growth of ESN at the units. Research Design

As a conceptual paper, the heart of this work involved a comprehensive literature review on the subject of ESN and its implementation. All data collected was secondary, and mostly qualitative in nature; no primary data was gathered. Literature specific to ESN was generally limited to that authored after 2005 except where the material was considered fundamental to the subject. The material reviewed came from several sources; mainly:

Journal articles: These short articles (generally 20 pages or less) provide new and very specific research material on countless topics. Journals related to IT and organizational management received particular attention.

Relevant books.

Credible Internet sites: There is a vast amount of information on the Internet, and much of it is not necessarily trustworthy. Information taken from the Internet was limited to Web sites that are widely accepted as credible.

The UK Ministry of Defence Intranet: The UK MoD has many resources meant to help organizations implementing MOSS, including user guides, lessons learned, and supporting power-point presentations.

Athabasca University course content and discussion groups: In the course of my MBA program I have accumulated textbooks, personal books on management topics, MBA course content, including student and coach discussions, and assignment papers. All of these were a valuable resource for this paper.

The results of the literature review were then compared against the ESN implementation plan for the AWC. Positive and negative aspects of the plan were identified and recommendations to improve the plan provided.


Results

As was done in the literature review, the results can be categorized by people, the organization, and the solution itself. Table 1 below shows the various concepts from literature separated into the three categories, as well as my interpretation of how well the MoD captured or covered the concept in the MOSS adoption handbook. Where coverage is annotated ‗Yes‘, the plan effectively covers the requirement. This does not necessarily mean that the MoD plan complies with the literature. There are unique aspects of the military environment or the AWC that merit deviations from what might otherwise be considered best practices. These circumstances are explained. Where coverage is annotated ‗No‘, the concept is not at all addressed. Finally, where coverage is annotated ‗Questionable‘, the topic may be covered, but the plan requires further discussion or for unclear reasons, does not follow best practices according to the literature. Literature category Specific concept from literature Coverage by the

AWC plan

The people component Response to ESN implementation by individuals

No

Effects of social ties and influence No

Management support and participation Questionable

The organizational component Openness and transparency Yes

Structural change Yes

Governance Yes

Security Yes

Rewards and recognition No

The solution itself Search / discovery Yes

ESN evolution / bottom-up growth Yes

Model current workflows / provide value to users

Yes

Leverage power users / early adopters Yes

Training Questionable

Table 1: Comparison of literature and AWC plan


Analysis

The people component The people component of the ESN implementation is the aspect that is most lacking in the MoD plan. This is particularly distressing as people, more than any other resource, can completely derail an IT change effort through passive and active resistance. The plan does not recognize how users might respond to ESN, it does not indicate how users can be encouraged to adopt the new system, and it does not refer to the influence of social dynamics in supporting the ESN implementation. While the plan does talk about management involvement in guiding the evolution of the ESN, it does not communicate the importance of active and visible participation by senior leaders or the establishment of an ESN champion. The AWC must compensate for these deficiencies by training managers within the organization to recognize how change is progressing, and stimulate it where necessary. Managers need to recognize where the ESN adoption is going well, and leverage that against where it is not. They also need to recognize where individuals and groups are not accepting the solution or where they are having difficulty doing so, and take the necessary actions to move the implementation forward. The problem with tooling managers so that they can support change of this kind is that the skills and knowledge required are subjective. Fostering an ESN implementation is as much art as it is science. A training program may be able to provide some signs that, when observed indicate someone is having difficulty accepting the new system, but finding out why that is the case or how to turn the behavioural pattern around is much more difficult. The Universal IT Acceptance Model is an excellent tool to help managers put the appropriate stimulus in place to encourage user acceptance of an ESN solution. I was intrigued by how many aspects of user acceptance that were observed in the literature are captured in the model. It encapsulates an individual‘s motivation, the influence of social dynamics, the effects of demographics, and even the impact of organizational decree. The model appears well-developed with a foundation based on solid research, and can be a useful tool to managers who want to help the ESN implementation succeed. In addition to AWC managers being trained so that they can encourage ESN acceptance among employees, they must also demonstrate to AWC members their active participation. ―Executive support is important—beyond merely paying lip-service to the initiative or lecturing the rank-and-file about the need to embrace this or that tool. … Executives must lead by example and illustrate what it means to open up and participate, whether by spending time contributing to blogs or otherwise breaking the boundaries of the targeted information silos (Casarez, Cripe, & Weckerle, 2009).‖ Employees that can read a blog or discussion forum contribution that is authored by the senior managers at the AWC will be much more likely to adopt similar practices.


One other way to augment the MoD plan is for the AWC to identify and empower a champion within the organization to actively follow the implementation and exert the necessary authority or inspiration to maintain progress. Users need someone with authority that they can look to for an example. The implementation team needs someone to turn to when the implementation is stalled and they can‘t get it moving again. Management needs tactical and strategic guidance to ensure everyone is following the same plan. This champion will need to have the power and influence not only to promote the change, but also to coerce when necessary. The organizational component In a fashion similar to how Web 2.0 has changed the Internet, ESN can change an organization. On the Internet users are spreading and garnering knowledge on sites like Wikipedia (Wikipedia, n.d.), consumers have a powerful force in discussion forums and product reviews, and business people are more socially connected through sites like LinkedIn (LinkedIn, 2011). On the business side, using ESN, people work more collaboratively, knowledge is better preserved, and users more readily obtain needed information. But for these and other benefits to be realized, the organization has to evolve in parallel. The culture will have to welcome openness and transparency, but this will have to be tempered by appropriate governance and security. Even the organizational structure may have to adapt. Openness and transparency is a theme that is often associated with ESN. Improved collaboration is a positive feature, but people have to expose their work to a wider audience. Information is useful, but only if it‘s not being hoarded in an effort to maintain power and influence. Culturally, a move toward openness and transparency in a military organization will be slow and difficult. Personnel at all levels tend to classify and categorize information, sectioning it for certain eyes only. Undoubtedly militaries hold sensitive information that could cause harm in the wrong hands, but the requirement to protect that information often extends to benign information as well. The active promotion and encouragement of openness and transparency will probably be met with a resistance. It may be better to allow its natural progression, supported by the tools that ESN provides. Over time, an appropriate balance will result between uninhibited access to and the security of sensitive information. Another thing an organization can change to help a transition to ESN is its hierarchical and functional structure. The literature indicates a move from vertical to a more horizontal hierarchy where workers are more empowered to do their jobs is necessary. The MoD plan recognizes a need for structural change that accompanies the ESN, but is not very specific as to what changes are required, or how they should be achieved. Similarly to openness and transparency, a move to a more horizontal hierarchy will be difficult in a military organization. The concepts of rigid hierarchical structures and chains of command are ingrained in the military culture. However the AWC, being a knowledge center for air and electronic warfare, is perhaps more suited to a decentralized hierarchy than some other military units. Employees are highly trained and educated. They can function with more independence than a traditional military unit


where mission plans are detailed and thorough. The AWC should look for areas where organizational change makes sense in an ESN context, but only adopt change after careful consideration. Over time a functional structure can be found that works well with ESN, but can still effectively suit meeting mission objectives. Fitting to transparency and structural change is governance change. Users need to understand what rules will be in place and what behaviour is appropriate. For example, will all meetings require an agenda and subsequent minutes posted on the ESN? Are people permitted to post personal comments, such as well wishes on someone‘s birthday? The MoD implementation plan calls for the separation of information into ―work in progress‖ (WIP) and records. Outside of that the plan stresses the need for information governance, but allows individual units to decide what governance is appropriate to their organization. One item that has not been addressed in the MoD plan is taxonomy. At the AWC, there is certain terminology used in fields such as air warfare, electronic warfare, the military in general, and the associated doctrine. To render information accessibility more effective, the AWC needs to develop and publish taxonomies that employees can refer to in their day-to-day work. This taxonomy will not be stagnant; it will be a living and evolving collection of terminology that will change over time. Along with governance, appropriate security will reinforce an effective ESN implementation. Notwithstanding the idea of openness and transparency, users also need to feel that their sensitive information is properly guarded from access by the wrong people. Although the security settings for the ESN do not use all of the capabilities of SharePoint, there is effective security in place that addresses the issues identified in the literature. The MoD plan effectively addresses most of the requirements under the organizational component of the literature, however there is a clear omission. Cultural, organizational, and governance changes must be supported by an appropriate rewards and recognition scheme. Where employees are adopting the required changes or actively supporting them, their efforts need to be rewarded. This does not necessarily need to be a monetary reward or significant recognition ceremony. In the context of the ESN, a supervisor could simply acknowledge a good effort in the daily routine. For example, where calling for meeting attendees to review and approve meeting minutes, the supervisor could acknowledge the drafter. Instead of saying ―please review and approve the minutes‖, she could say ―please review and approve the minutes that so-and-so has put together online for our easy access‖. At a regular meeting, the chair could make a quick comment and show appreciation for an effective ESN site so-and-so put together for everyone‘s use. A supervisor could also make a specific note regarding an individual‘s support in advancing the ESN in the employee‘s performance evaluation. As the MoD plan does not address such incentives, the AWC must encourage managers to watch for and take advantage of these opportunities to demonstrate appreciation for positive efforts that support the ESN implementation.


The solution itself The solution itself refers to the features of the ESN implementation. How will it grow? Where can the AWC look for small victories and scale them up? What tools will people use to find the information they are looking for? Newman et al. and Casarez et al. stressed the importance of search and discovery in an ESN solution. The vast amount of information that an ESN will accumulate over time will be useless if it becomes too grand and unwieldy to effectively manage. The SharePoint technology provides a search capability that can be extended to the Windows NTFS file structure. This is an appropriate solution for the AWC. One way the solution can gain acceptance is if it models the current workflows and provides value to the users. If people can resolve issues in a discussion forum instead of sitting down for a meeting, that could allow them to accomplish more work. Meetings are in the current workflow, but to an extent can be replaced with discussion forums. If employees can fill out an online form and submit it electronically, after which the recipient is immediately informed by e-mail, they do not have to complete a hard copy and hand-carry it to the recipient. These tasks are in the workflow, but the ESN has provided a better facility to carry out the work. The MoD plan encourages this kind of use of the ESN. Another important aspect of the implementation is where growth will be encouraged and ideally observed. Certainly management will want to identify areas where the ESN can provide value and accordingly develop solutions; and the MoD plan supports this. But the literature indicates that ESNs that also realize development from the bottom-up are more successful. Where solutions are mandated on employees, there will be resistance. However where the users develop their own solutions from an ESN, they see wider acceptance. That is also the beauty of ESN; that users can develop their own solutions to their business requirements. The MoD plan encourages development from the top-down, and the bottom-up, which is an appropriate way forward. The idea of bottom-up development is exciting. Imagine an organization where the rank and file made IT solutions for their own business problems. ESN does support this ideal, as users will learn the technology the more they use it in their day-to-day work. However when an ESN is new to an organization, certain people will emerge as having picked up on the technology at an earlier stage. They will be more advanced than the average user. They are commonly referred to as power users or early adopters. The literature expresses the benefits of leveraging the capabilities and knowledge of power users to grow the ESN. If an early adopter implements a workflow process entirely on the ESN, management may want to ask that person to coach other people to do the same. The MoD plan also encourages organizations to leverage the skills and knowledge of power users and early adopters to their benefit. Regardless of how the system is implemented or what features it may have, users will have to receive training on how to use it. The MoD implementation includes online


training for users in many of the capabilities of SharePoint. Online guides instruct users on tasks such as generating a discussion forum, creating a document library, or establishing a wiki. One concern I have is the MoD plan requirement for employees to ―pass‖ aspects of the training before they can use the ESN. They must complete the ―IM Matters‖ e-learning program and pass an assessment, and four weeks after that they will need to complete and pass another assessment. While training is important, and should even be mandatory, the requirement to pass multiple assessments will turn some users away from using the system. What would happen if someone cannot pass the assessments? Would some employees at the AWC be allowed to use the ESN, but others not? How would those not allowed on the ESN respond to meeting requests if they cannot log onto the system? Ultimately I believe common sense will prevail and all users will be granted access to the ESN regardless of how they have done on assessments. Still, the requirement to pass a training segment sends the wrong message to users. They will see the ESN as a hurdle rather than a tool. Unfortunately the AWC does not have the final say on this requirement, however they should express to the national IM organization their dissatisfaction with requiring users to pass tests on using the ESN. Recommendations

Based on the literature review and its comparison with the MoD ESN implementation plan, I recommend the following to the AWC:

1. Management training: By rollout of the ESN, all AWC personnel in supervisory

positions are to be briefed on what to expect from their subordinate groups and individuals, as well as what changes may help to overcome any problems. This could be through briefings, open discussions, or possibly a training document. The training should include the Universal IT Acceptance Model in detail. Additionally, this training should include a rewards and recognition scheme to further support user engagement.

2. Executive participation: By three months after rollout of the ESN, senior managers at the AWC must demonstrate one way they are actively participating in the ESN. This needs to be visible to subordinate employees, and could include setting up meetings, maintaining a blog, or tasking subordinates using the ESN.

3. Establishment of a champion: By rollout of the ESN, the AWC must appoint and empower a champion to oversee progress of the ESN, and actively intervene where needed to ensure the implementation moves forward.

4. Contest user testing requirement: By rollout of the ESN, the AWC must express to the national MoD IM group their apprehension with the requirement for users to pass testing to be allowed access to the ESN.

5. High-level taxonomy: By rollout of the ESN, the AWC must develop and publish a high-level taxonomy to guide users in standard terminology for the organization.


Conclusion

Implementing an ESN is not an easy task and comes with significant risk. The AWC needs every tool at its disposal to ensure a successful implementation. The findings of this paper are significant to the AWC as without them the organization is constrained within the MoD plan. While the MoD plan is good, it misses some important items that need to be part of any ESN implementation. Specifically, the AWC needs to train managers to recognize where the implementation is not progressing as expected and to subsequently act to keep the implementation moving forward. This will involve managers understanding how individuals and groups respond to IT change, and what motivators can be put in place to bring people in line with expectations when they are off course. Management training must be coupled with executive and senior management support by way of active participation and the establishment of a ESN champion. It is one thing to say what is expected of employees, but users will really adopt cultural and behavioural change when they see senior personnel actively engaged in the change. Finally, the AWC has to contest the requirement for AWC members to pass testing in order to use the ESN. MoD has to realize that personnel will be going through significant change during the implementation process. Adding a hurdle such as testing in the transition is sure to invite resistance where it is likely to already be in place. These findings are supported by a comprehensive literature review. This review defines ESN for readers, as well as how the technology affects business operations. It goes on to list associated benefits and challenges from many aspects, including people, the organization, and the solution itself. The outcome of the literature review is a compilation of best practices for an ESN implementation. These best practices are compared against the MoD implementation plan, and weaknesses are identified. There is great potential for the ESN implementation at the AWC to provide significant returns for the organization. At the same time, this initiative represents cultural, behavioural, and organizationally structural changes. The impact of this kind of upheaval cannot be underestimated. The AWC has to put forth every effort to make the ESN implementation a success, and the findings of this paper can help in that effort.


Appendix A – MOSS adoption toolkit screenshot


Appendix B – MoD ESN Permission Rights

iHub

Admin Team

Admin Member Reader

View Files (including list items) Load, read, print files at this location, but do not allow any changes or new files to be written.

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Edit Existing Files* Load a file in write mode. Edit and save the content to the same filename.

Yes Yes Yes No

Add New Files* Create new files at this location.

Yes Yes Yes No

Delete Files* Delete a file from this location – regardless of owner.

Yes Yes Yes No

Add New Library or List Create a new Document Library or List in this Team Site.

Yes Yes No No

Add New Activity/Meeting Workspace Create a new sub-site under this location.

Yes Yes No No

Edit Look and Feel Change the appearance of a Site, Document Library, List, Home Page, Navigation and this change to be seen by all users.

Yes Yes No No

Manage Permissions Add to or delete the groups that can access the Site, Document Library or List.

Yes Yes No No

Manage Groups Add or delete users to existing groups through the use of the Quest Active Roles (QARS) tool.

Yes No No No

Create and Deploy Templates Create new Site, Document Library and List templates. Make these available throughout one or more Site collections. Note: Although Team Administrators have some template actions available, the full set is only available to iHub Administrators.

Yes No No No


References

Amazon.com. (2011). Amazon.com. Retrieved February 17, 2011, from Amazon.com: www.amazon.com

Andriole, S. J. (2010). Business Impact of Web 2.0 Technologies. Communications of the ACM, 67-79.

Andriole, S. J. (2010). Business Impact of Web 2.0 Technologies. Communications of the ACM, 67-79.

Arthur, C. (2006, July 20). What is the 1% rule? Retrieved March 04, 2011, from guardian.co.uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jul/20/guardianweeklytechnologysection2

Athabasca University. (n.d.). E-Books. Retrieved January 23, 2011, from Athabasca University Library: http://library.athabascau.ca/ebook.php

Athabasca University. (n.d.). E-Journals. Retrieved January 23, 2011, from Athabasca University Library: http://library.athabascau.ca/ejournal.php

Barnes, N. D., & Barnes, F. R. (2009). Equipping Your Organization for the Social Networking Game. Information Management, 28-33.

Becker, K. (2010). Facilitating unlearning during implementation of new technology. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 251-268.

Best Buy. (2011). Have an idea for Best Buy? Retrieved February 17, 2011, from Best Buy Ideax: http://bestbuyideax.com/

Boudrea, M.-C., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective. Organization Science, 3-18.

Boudreau, M.-C., & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective. Organization Science, 3-18.

Bughin, J., Manyika, J., & Miller, A. (2008). Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise: McKinsey Global Survey Results. McKinsey on Business Technology, 38-47.

Burns, R. (2011, March 3). Army charges WikiLeaks suspect with 'aiding enemy'. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from The Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/army-charges-wikileaks-suspect-with-aiding-enemy/article1928133/


Casarez, V., Cripe, B., & Weckerle, P. (2009). Reshaping Your Business With Web 2.0: Using the New Collaborative Technologies to Lead Business Transformation. Chicago: McGraw-Hill/Osborne.

Chui, M., Miller, A., & Robers, R. P. (2009). Six ways to make Web 2.0 work. McKinsey Quarterly, 64-73.

Cope, J. (2002, April 8). Quick Study: Peer-to-Peer Network. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from Computer World: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/69883/Peer_to_Peer_Network

Curry, B., & English, B. (2008). Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 Best Practices. Redmond: Microsoft Press.

Daft, R. L., & Armstrong, A. (2009). Organization Theory and Design. Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd.

Dieringer, D. S. (2004, June 24). ERP Implementation at Nestle. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from University of Wisconsin: http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/wresch/ERPNestle.htm

Donston, D. (2008). Web 2.0. eWeek, 39-45.

Facebook. (2011). Facebook. Retrieved February 11, 2011, from Facebook: www.facebook.com

Farhoomand, A. (2005). Managing (e) Business Transformation: A Global Perspective. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Gale, J., & Abraham, D. (2005). Introduction: toward understanding e-business transformation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 114.

Gartner. (2009, August 11). Gartner's 2009 Hype Cycle Special Report Evaluates Maturity of 1,650 Technologies. Retrieved February 6, 2011, from Gartner: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=11242127

Harvard Business Essentials. (2003). Managing Change and Transition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Hossain, L., & de Silva, A. (2009). Exploring user acceptance of technology using social networks. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 1-18.

Jellison, J. M. (2006). Managing the Dynamics of Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Krell, T., & Gale, J. (2005). E-business migration: a process model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 117-131.


Lam, H. (2008). Essentials of Strategic Human Resource Management and Organizational Behaviour. St. Albert: Centre for Innovative Management Athabasca University.

Lam, H. (2008). Essentials of Strategic Human Resource Management and Organizational Behaviour. St. Albert: Centre for Innovative Management, Athabasa University.

Landry, B. J., Mahesh, S., & Hartman, S. (2005). The changing nature of work in the age of e-business. The Journal of Organizational Change Management, 132-144.

Landry, B. J., Mahesh, S., & Hartmann, S. (2005). The changing nature of work in the age of e-business. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 132-144.

LinkedIn. (2011). LinkedIn. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/

Loza, C. (2010, August 3). History of Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server. Retrieved January 23, 2011, from eHow: http://www.ehow.com/facts_6812136_history-microsoft-office-sharepoint-server.html

Luecke, R. (2003). Managing Change and Transition. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

McAfee, A. (2006). Mastering the Three Worlds of Information Technology. Harvard Business Review, 141-149.

McAfee, A. (2006). Mastering the Three Worlds of Information Technology. Havard Business Review, 141-149.

McAfee, A. P. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. MIT Sloan Management Review, 21-28.

McAfee, A. P. (2009). Shattering the Myths About Enterprise 2.0. Harvard Business Review, 1-6.

McClure, M. (2008). Web 2.0 Security: Getting Collaborative Peace of Mind. EContent, 36-41.

McKinsey Quarterly. (2007, March). How businesses are using Web 2.0: A McKinsey Global Survey. Retrieved February 5, 2011, from McKinsey Quarterly: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/How_businesses_are_using_Web_20_A_McKinsey_Global_Survey_1913

McKinsey Quarterly. (2010, November 16). What is McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved January 15, 2011, from McKinsey Quarterly: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/sp.aspx?pgn=RN_basics


Ministry of Defence. (2011, January 20). MOSS Adoption Project - MOSS Adoption Handbook. United Kingdom: Ministry of Defence.

Ministry of Defence. (n.d.). Collaborative Working on DII(F). United Kingdom: Ministry of Defence.

Ministry of Defence. (n.d.). MOSS Adoption Toolkit. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from MoD Intranet.

Modigliani, P. (2010). Defense Acquisition Enterprise 2.0. Defense AT&L, 56-60.

Murugesan, S. (2007). Understanding Web 2.0. IT Pro, 34-41.

Nagle, T., & Sammon, D. (2009). A Theoretical Lens to Examine the Structural Impact of Adopting Web 2.0. European Conference on Information Management and Evaluation (pp. 348-355). Sweden: Academic Conferences, Ltd.

Nath, A. K., Rahul, S., & Iyer, L. S. (2010). Web 2.0: Capabilities, Business Value and Strategic Practice. Journal of Information Science and Technology, 22-39.

Newman, A. C., & Thomas, J. (2009). Enterprise 2.0 Implementation. Chicago: McGraw-Hill/Osborne.

Nielsen, J. (2006, October 9). Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to Contribute. Retrieved March 04, 2011, from useit.com: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html

O'Reilly, T. (n.d.). Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved January 23, 2011, from O'Reilly: http://www.oreillynet.com/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Pateli, A. G., & Giaglis, G. M. (2005). Technology innovation-induced business model change: a contingency approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 167-183.

Restler, S. G., & Woolis, D. D. (2007). Actors and Factors: Virtual Communities of Social Innovation. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 89-96.

Roberts, B. (2010). Developing a Social Business Network. HR Magazine, 54-60.

Royal Air Force. (2011). Air Warfare Centre. Retrieved January 23, 2011, from RAF Waddington: http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafwaddington/aboutus/airwarfarecentre.cfm

Ruiz, C. (2008, February 12). Who coined Web 2.0?: Darcy DiNucci. Retrieved January 23, 2011, from Cole20: http://www.cole20.com/who-coined-web-20-darcy-dinucci/


Schneckenberg, D. (2009). Web 2.0 and the empowerment of the knowledge worker. Journal of Knowledge Management, 509-520.

Scott, J. E. (n.d.). The FoxMeyer Drugs' Bankruptcy: Was it a Failure of ERP? Retrieved January 18, 2011, from University of Austin at Texas: http://www.uta.edu/faculty/weltman/INSY5375/FoxMeyer.pdf

Slack, N., Chambers, S., & Johnston, R. (2007). Operations Management fifth edition. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2007). Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Penguin Group.

Tassabehji, Wallace, J., & Cornelius, N. (2007). E-technology and the emergent e-environment: Implications for organizational form and function. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15-30.

Tredinnick, L. (2006). Web 2.0 and Business. Business Information Review, 228-234.

Turban, E., & Volonino, L. (2010). Information Technology for Management, 7th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 425-478.

von Kortzfleisch, H., Mergel, I., Manoucheri, S., & Schaarschmidt, M. (n.d.). Corporate Web 2.0 Applications: Motives, Organisational Embeddedness, and Creativity. Retrieved February 26, 2011, from Harvard: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/netgov/files/people/ines/Web%202%200%20HvKortzfleisch%20Mergel%20et%20al.pdf

Wasko, M. M., & Samer, F. (2005). Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. MIS Quarterly, 35-57.

Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139-145.

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from Wikipedia: http://www.wikipedia.org/

Williams, V. L. (2007). Microsoft SharePoint 2007 for DUMMIES. Hoboken: Wiley Publishing, Inc.

terry ledrew aprj-699 implementing enterprise social...

Documents