Internal vs. External depends on industry/usage. If I recall correctly, IBM has had great success with an external facing confluence installation as a support resource for end user-tech interaction, as well as a new platform for development;
Internally we've used our E2.0 engine to boost productivity and talent-management ROI. We looked at several engines, some met certain needs and some did not. It has been harder thusfar to push the 'social' aspect of these technologies vs. the obvious productivity aspect.
Corporate culture is coming about, but it's a slow process - no matter how dazzling or user friendly the technology, there is a cultural adoption barrier to overcome.
ElliotRoss
· 3 months ago
I find it interesting - I have complained that in the "Dot 2" world - there needs to be a difference in metrics and other measures - for internal vs external - and I would think the internal is harder to quantify - yet what most seem to be successfully doing
I see two "faces" to to what we call this Dot 2 world
Face Number One
This is the face we commonly talk about. The externally focused, outside the firewall methods for building brand awareness, customer loyalty, keeping a finger on the pulse of our brand, and reaching out for marketing, service, customer input, and communications purposes.
For face number one, we can usually look at our existing methods of marketing management, plus utilize our existing marketing metrics and tools for an ROI calculation.
Face Number Two?
For want of a better term, let me call it the inside the firewall digital water cooler.
In the same way you replaced the four seat cafeteria tables with larger ones, spread out impromptu conference rooms, and opened up your facility spaces.
You did this to remove the barriers to communication and collaboration, improve informal communication paths and methods, and work on the probability that ad-hoc idea exchanges occur.
To me, face number two needs a different language. It needs different ROI calculations. Because at the end of the day, face number two is a numbers game.
Can we lump both of these faces under one single (vague) umbrella?
All Comments
Internally we've used our E2.0 engine to boost productivity and talent-management ROI. We looked at several engines, some met certain needs and some did not. It has been harder thusfar to push the 'social' aspect of these technologies vs. the obvious productivity aspect.
Corporate culture is coming about, but it's a slow process - no matter how dazzling or user friendly the technology, there is a cultural adoption barrier to overcome.
I see two "faces" to to what we call this Dot 2 world
Face Number One
This is the face we commonly talk about. The externally focused, outside the firewall methods for building brand awareness, customer loyalty, keeping a finger on the pulse of our brand, and reaching out for marketing, service, customer input, and communications purposes.
For face number one, we can usually look at our existing methods of marketing management, plus utilize our existing marketing metrics and tools for an ROI calculation.
Face Number Two?
For want of a better term, let me call it the inside the firewall digital water cooler.
In the same way you replaced the four seat cafeteria tables with larger ones, spread out impromptu conference rooms, and opened up your facility spaces.
You did this to remove the barriers to communication and collaboration, improve informal communication paths and methods, and work on the probability that ad-hoc idea exchanges occur.
To me, face number two needs a different language. It needs different ROI calculations. Because at the end of the day, face number two is a numbers game.
Can we lump both of these faces under one single (vague) umbrella?