As usual, this week we learned that everything we know is wrong. Check out some adoption practices you probably never thought to try out ("impossible deadlines work best," for example), as well as the different faces of collaboration for innovation. 

Six Counterintuitive Truths About Enterprise 2.0 Adoption 

Scott Ryser, co-founder and CEO of Yakabod, lent us his expertise for this one: 

Consider the 'truths' for traditional back-office deployments: get everything right before you go live. Mandate a cutover date and turn off the old system. Calculate ROI by increases or decreases in anything tangible — widgets, hours, paperwork. None of that stuff applies to E2.0 environments. In my experience, six counterintuitive principles work better.

Here's a quick glance:

  1. Launch before you are comfortable 
  2. Training discourages adoption
  3. Compliance is not victory
  4. Impossible deadlines work best
  5. Past successes don't count
  6. Accomplishment trumps productivity

It sounds kinda crazy, but shaking things up may be exactly what your organization needs. Check out Ryser's logic here.

Three Types of Collaboration that Drive Innovation 

Collaboration is more than just jamming a bunch of different thoughts from different sources together. Spigit's VP of Product, Hutch Carpenter, hung out again this week and encouraged consideration of the different types:

What about collaboration in the service of innovation? What are the ways collaboration helps employees, and organizations as a whole, advance their ideas and create impactful innovations? 

When it comes to innovation, Carpenter believes there are three main types of collaboration: 

Peas in a Pod

This is the type most people automatically think of when they think of collaboration. It involves the people you work with, the people you're familiar with. And while such group familiarity is a good thing in a lot of cases, it's not always the case when it comes to innovation. 

"Researchers Daniel Gigone and Reid Hastie found that in groups where the majority of members possess the same knowledge, that knowledge becomes the basis of discussion,
notes Carpenter. "...This is a problem for too-familiar collaboration groups. Valuable information can be missed, never even considered. This is not about challenging others’ analysis and assumptions, but just plain missing critical bits of information."

New Partners in Crime 

This form of collaboration makes room for people outside of familiarity groups to come in and give their two cents.  Carpenter notes the following differences:

  • Teams form virtually, on-the-fly
  • Idea/problem-to-be-solved is basis of team formation
  • Intrinsically motivated participation
  • Anyone can contribute


The title says it all. Carpenter's third group includes those that don't like your idea. Don't worry, disagreement does not mean conflict in this case, and companies of all sizes are embracing it. Carpenter notes several purposes of contention:

  • Remove points where the idea gets it “wrong”
  • Force a simplification to what works
  • Highlight issues that need to be addressed in upcoming efforts to advance the idea
  • Understand the risks of what can go wrong
  • Surface the organizational antibodies, and plan accordingly
  • Identify the best ideas through a form of rivalry

Check out his argument in full here.

Does Your Intranet Include Collaboration Tools or Features? 

Survey says, "No!" 

We kicked out a poll a few days ago, asking you if your intranet included collaboration tools and features. Over 1,000 of you responded, and here are the results: 


Sure, many of you do have native collaboration tools/features built into your Intranet, but this graph also shows that many of you do not. Heck, 164 of the respondents don't even have an intranet. Surprising? Maybe. A little jarring? Definitely. 

Help us get to the root of these results here

ContentM Offers Social Media Mashups for Higher Education

And now we're going to switch it up and talk about social media. It's a concept everyone's injecting into their organizations, but, like collaboration, ubiquity doesn't equal an easy road. 

When it comes to  higher education, for example, there's a ton of fresh, smart and talented youth who know what's what in the social media 'verse. But what about the alumni?

ContentM is an enterprise CMS built for universities, and has been designed to give them both management power and the functionality to create webpages that serve the needs of administrators, teachers and students alike.

Meanwhile, newcomer ContentM SMASHUP helps universities aggregate all aspects of a university's social media initiatives into one central hub to attract prospective students, interact with current students or keep in touch with alumni.