Successfully
Recommended Internal Conditions and Tools
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty Economics and Business
May 31, 2010 ANNETTE RIETSEMA Student number: 1729497 Davidstraat 74 9725 BT, Groningen Tel: +31 (0)6 24 21 17 42 e-mail: a.a.rietsema@student.rug.nl
Supervisor University of Groningen Dr. D. Seo
Supervisor TNO ICT R. Attema-van Waas
L. Kuiper-Hoyng
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENT Introduction 5 Research objective 7 Research relevance 7 Research questions 8 Literature Review 9 Web 1.0 9 Web 2.0 10 In principle 10
Features of the technology 12
Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0 17
Enterprise 2.0 18
Enterprise 2.0 in principle 20
Enterprise 2.0 internal conditions 22
Enterprise 2.0 internal Benefits 24
Enterprise 2.0 externally 26
Becoming Enterprise 2.0 27
Four Quadrants Of Web And Enterprise 28
Quadrant I: Full-fledged Enterprise 2.0 29
Quadrant II: Technically lacking Enterprise 2.0 30
Quadrant III: Pure Enterprise 1.0 31
Quadrant IV: Misled Enterprise 31
Analysis and Discussion 51
Recommendations 53
Technological perspective: recommendations to adopt Web 2.0 tools 53
Customer Relationship Management 54
Service 54
Marketing 54
Development 55
Organisational perspective: recommendations to change organisational internal conditions 55 Organisational structure 56 Organisational culture 57 Communication 57 Leadership style 57 Conclusion 58
Limitations and Further research 59
References 60
Appendix A: Interview Questions 63
INTRODUCTION
Internet was initially dominated by organisations offering content created in such a way that it only presented the information the organisation wanted to make public (Henning 2009). Therefore, at the same time the Internet users could only passively consume the information as presented.
In the recent years the Internet has gone through a tremendous transformation. The arrival of social and collaborative software in the early 2000s, better known as Web 2.0 technologies, liberated the Internet of its hierarchical, static straitjacket (Rogers and Smith, 2008). The Internet has become the interactive domain of the public. Web 2.0 technology enables the previous consumers of ―one-way‖ content to start create and share their own content on the Web (Rogers and Smith, 2008). People are writing blogs about a large variety of topics, including their personal experiences and opinions regarding commercial products and services. They share their knowledge, thoughts, and experiences with each other in wiki‘s and forums. Furthermore, people have formed professional and personal online social networks via websites like Facebook, Hyves, and LinkedIn, et cetera. It has come to the point where people socially use Web 2.0 applications on a daily basis, at least in countries with a high Internet penetration.
Obviously, what is happening on the Internet also has its impact on organisations. As more and more Internet users express their opinions and participate in conversations concerning organisations products and services, pressures have grown on organisations. Especially in the consumer market, external and internal pressures are compelling organisations to fully adopt Web 2.0 technologies.
Some organisations are faster and more successful in their transformation into an Enterprise 2.0 than other organisations, even though they have adopted the same Web 2.0 technologies. This is mainly because, according the literature about Enterprise 2.0, an organisation has to be designed internally in such a way that it supports the Web 2.0 technology being integrated in the organisation.
In the current market, organisations are at different levels of Enterprise 2.0-ness. Organisations that are still engaged in a Web 1.0 and Enterprise 1.0 environment are accustomed to one-way communication, and it is difficult to gain a truly customer-centric perspective (Kreitzberg, 2009) in a short period of time. In other words, it is almost impossible for an organisation to engage in an open, collaborative, two-way communication relationship with its customer without changing its internal conditions such as structure and culture.
Some organisations already have, for instance, the right culture and/or structure that supports open communication and information sharing, and have an advantage over organisations such as mentioned before. They only have to make a few small changes to fine tune their internal conditions to support Web 2.0 technology and integrate the new technologies.
For an organisation to be a complete Enterprise 2.0, it has to be successfully utilizing Web 2.0 technology internally and externally. The literature about Enterprise 2.0 suggests that for organisations the best way to become a complete Enterprise 2.0 is to start with adopting Web 2.0 like technologies and the corresponding values internally (e.g. Bennet, 2008; Duhon, 2008; Jedd, 2008; Kreitzberg, 2009; van Doremaele, de Koning, and van der Sleen, 2009). Only when these are imbedded in the organisation, should the organisation engage itself with becoming 2.0 to its other stakeholders, like partners, suppliers, and customers.
Although some organisations already are somewhat further in the transformation into an Enterprise 2.0 than others, generally the transformation into an Enterprise 2.0 is a long-term plan, because it involves changing many conditions inside the organisation. Amongst the many necessary changes is, for instance, adapting the organisations culture, something that is hard to do and is time consuming. Subsequently, for many organisations it would take several years until they are ready to be 2.0 towards their stakeholders.
are operating on the consumer market. As mentioned before, the use of Web 2.0 technology is already embedded in the personal lives of many consumers. As a result, consumers are increasingly expecting to be able to communicate with organisations through these new technologies.
In addition, and maybe even the most obvious phenomenon online concerning organisations, consumers are discussing organisations and their products and services. Furthermore, consumers have become better informed, more demanding, more in control over their media habits, and so on (Cook, 2008; Riegner, 2007; Tapscott 2006). Given these circumstances, many organisations feel compelled to become more 2.0 towards their customers more quickly.
So, although literature is prescribing ways for organisations to become an Enterprise 2.0, the reality is that the organisational environment is demanding organisations, especially those operating on the consumer market, to deviate from these prescriptions. Instead of focussing on transforming into an Enterprise 2.0 internally, before addressing becoming 2.0 towards the customer, organisations are almost forced to start with the latter, ready or not.
Research objective
Considering the circumstance described above, this thesis will provide immediate actions organisations can take to move towards Enterprise 2.0 by recommending Web 2.0 tools and the most important aspects they should consider in changing their internal conditions. The research focuses on Web 2.0 activities towards customers, because this is the area in which organisations should take immediate actions to cope with customers‘ needs, even though Web 2.0 technologies can be used in many areas. Web 2.0 activities towards customers include activities for customer relationship management, service, marketing, sales, and development purposes.
Research relevance
Much is written about the topics Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0. Google the terms and you will be overwhelmed with related articles, websites, blogs, and so on.
cases that show the use of Web 2.0 software by organisations in their interaction with the consumer.
The literature concerning Enterprise 2.0 describes the characteristics of Web 2.0 technology in the organisation, the benefits of the use of Web 2.0 technology inside the organisation, and the impact of integrating Web 2.0 technology on the internal conditions of the organisation. In addition, few writings on the topic of Enterprise 2.0 give a very general description of how organisations should change into an Enterprise 2.0. However, these are focussed mainly on the internal transformation of the organisation.
As mentioned before, the literature concerning Enterprise 2.0 prescribes that organisations should transform into a complete Enterprise from the inside out. The literature concerning Web 2.0 tells us that the technology is already embedded in the personal lives of many consumers. And as a result, consumers are increasingly expecting to be able to communicate with organisations through these new technologies. As established, the consequence is that, instead of focussing on transforming into an Enterprise 2.0 internally before addressing becoming 2.0 towards the customer, organisations are almost forced to start with the latter.
However, there seems to be a gap in literature addressing this dilemma. I could not find anything written about how organisations should deal with the above situation. As mentioned before, simply applying some sort of Web 2.0 technology towards the customer is not enough. Unless a number of success factors are present within the organisation, Web 2.0 efforts often fail to launch or to reach expected heights of usage (Chui, Miller and Roberts, 2009). However, it is not made clear what those success factors are.
Furthermore, of all the available Web 2.0 tools, which of them should be applied by organisations in the interaction with its customers and how? There are no guidelines for organisations in need to become 2.0 towards its customers as quick as possible.
This research addresses this dilemma by exploring the requirements and possibilities for organisations trying to cope with such a situation.
Research questions
In light of the research objective above, the central question of this research is:
This question consists of two interrelated parts.
1. What are the requirements the internal conditions of an organisation must meet to successfully apply Web 2.0 tools externally?
2. Which Web 2.0 tools can an organisation apply towards its customers?
LITERATURE REVIEW
As mentioned in the introduction of this thesis, according to the literature, organisations should focus becoming an Enterprise 2.0 before committing to Web 2.0 interactions with its customers. However, because the transformation into an Enterprise 2.0 implies a long term engagement for many organisations, this research is about organisations interacting with their customers in a Web 2.0 way, before being Enterprise 2.0. In order to research this, it needs to be established what the terms Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 include. Therefore, I elaborate on both terms in this chapter.
First, I explain the term Web 2.0 by first giving a description of the term Web 1.0, the predecessor of Web 2.0, and then giving a thorough description of what Web 2.0 entails. Becoming an Enterprise 2.0 means adopting Web 2.0 technologies and values. I describe what this implies for an organisation, after the explanation of Web 2.0, under Enterprise 2.0. In the final section of this chapter, I elaborate on the way organisations can interact with their customers in a Web 2.0 fashion according to the literature. The various Web 2.0 tools that can be applied in the interaction with customers are discussed, as well as the organisational gain in interaction in such a way.
It has been about 14 years since the introduction of the Internet to the large public. In 1996 there were only 250,000 websites and 36 million Internet users. Compare that to 2006, when we saw over a billion Internet users and approximately 105,244,649 websites, and it is easy to forget just how quickly the world in which we live has evolved (Marfleet, 2008). The Internet has grown enormously over the years and it has experienced some changes. In the 14 years since the introduction of the first Web browser, the Internet has been considered an interactive communications tool. However, because in reality it was never really used as such, we are just beginning to unlock the Web’s ability to help us interact (Schipul, 2006).
While Tim Berners-Lee, founder of the World Wide Web, always intended for the World Wide Web to be a two-way communication medium for reading and writing, most early sites were for one-way communication, with a company describing itself in brochure ware (Henning, 2009). Before 2003/04 organisations used the Web primarily to disseminate information. This type of internet utilization is known as Web 1.0. Web 1.0 was built on traditional publishing memes – the idea was to push information to a relative passive audience (Castelluccio, 2008). In Web 1.0, content was written, edited, and published by a select group of people, much the same way books are published; consequently the information was mostly one-way (Baumann, 2006). Most of the websites created between the mid-1990s and 2004 are Web 1.0 sites. Although the boundaries between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 websites are not really clear, there are some aspects that characterize Web 1.0 sites;
Web 1.0 sites are static and rarely change. Personal Web pages, which give information about the site‘s owner, were common in Web 1.0 (Henning, 2009; Strickland, 2008).
Web 1.0 sites are not interactive and simply to be read passively. Visitors cannot impact or contribute to these sites (Henning, 2009; Strickland, 2008).
Web 1.0 applications are proprietary. Under the Web 1.0 philosophy, companies develop software applications that users can download, but they cannot see how the application works or change it (Strickland, 2008).
The term Web 1.0 is a retronym which refers to the state of the World Wide Web, and any website design style used before the introduction of the term Web 2.0 (worldlingo.com). It is easier to create a better sense of what the term Web 1.0 represents when it is compared to Web 2.0, which I describe below.
Web 2.0 In principle
the business community) dismissed the term as a marketing ‗buzz word‘, the change in the way we use the web described by O‘Reilly must be recognized and is clearly evident as of today (Mairlinger, 2008). Web 2.0 is a term created to encompass the recent fundamental changes in the way the Web is used and the associated new technologies.
Although there is no universal agreement on what Web 2.0 means, a relatively short and understandable definition that most users of the term would probably agree with is:
Web 2.0 is the term given to describe a second generation of the World Wide Web that is focused on the ability for people to collaborate and share information online. Web 2.0 basically refers to the transition from static HTML Web pages to a more dynamic Web that is more organized and is based on serving Web applications to users. Other improved functionality of Web 2.0 includes open communication with an emphasis on Web-based communities of users, and more open sharing of information
(Cronin, 2009).
Or, even shorter and maybe also more understandable:
"A second generation of services available on the World Wide Web that lets people collaborate and share information online. In contrast to the first generation, Web 2.0 gives users an experience closer to desktop applications than the traditional static Web pages" (Cong and Du, 2007).
Although these definitions of the term Web 2.0 give an idea of what it means, they do not make clear what Web 2.0 includes and the impact it has in the development and on the use of the internet. Therefore, I elaborate further on what Web 2.0 entails.
The ‗2.0‘ of Web 2.0 does not refer to a particular technical upgrade or incremental version. It is really intended to capture a fundamental change in the way the web is used. In the web‘s early life, the technical skills required to publish information online such as knowledge of Hyper Text Mark-up Language (HTML) had effectively restricted the number of users who were able to write as well as read information. With such constraints increasingly eliminated by easier, user-friendly publishing tools, Web 2.0 can be thought of as a platform for what Tapscott and Williams (2007) describe as ‗prosumption‘ – that is, the creation of products and services by the people that use them.
different sources. It is driven by users and enabled by technology (Rogers and Smith, 2008). Web 2.0 is all about people and tapping into what they know and want to know. It is all about people working collaboratively and sharing knowledge. It is all about making such collaborations easy and the information being shared relevant and easier to access. Web 2.0 is the entirety of technologies, products, and websites that promote two-way communication and information sharing. It replaces the passive surf-shop-click interaction in the "old" web with the interactivity that comes with people creating web content about all sorts of topics for all sorts of other people to surf, click, and add more content (Gould, 2009).
The notion of Web 2.0 leads people to think that, prior to 2004 before Web 2.0 became known, people only put up brochures on their websites or did not have a way to express themselves. That is not true. The ability to express and share information was always there with the Internet, it is just that now the tools and technology are much easier to use (Jedd, 2008). Now almost all the technological and economic barriers to entry have been removed, with a single focus on people. People connecting with each other; people sharing information in their own voices; people controlling what goes into the knowledge space. In other words, bottom-up rather than top-down (Cook, 2008). Instead of the information source dictating how information is presented and consumed, the user is in charge. The belief that the Web user should have control is at the heart of Web 2.0 (Schipul, 2006).
Features of the technology
Collaborative technologies, dubbed Web 2.0, are spreading among online users. For instance, blogs were initiated in 2001, to amount to 70 million worldwide at the end of 2006. MySpace has managed to attract 100 million monthly visitors in less than three years. YouTube, a user-generated video site, succeeded in generating 100 million views a day in two years of existence (and was sold for $1.65 billion to Google.com), and one of the best known wikis is Wikipedia. As of September 2007 Wikipedia boasted 8.2 million articles in 253 languages. It is one of the 10 most visited sites on the web (Bughin, 2008; Mairlinger, 2008; Warr, 2008). Facts and figures like these reflect the success of user-generated content websites.
However, there are some important site features that mark out a Web 2.0 website. These features include the following:
Users as first class entities in the system, with prominent profile pages, including such features as: age, sex, location, testimonials, or comments about the user by other users. The ability to form connections between users, via links to other users who are ―friends‖, membership in ―groups‖ of various kinds, and subscriptions or RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds of ―updates‖ from other users.
The ability to post content in many forms: photos, videos, blogs, comments and ratings on other users‘ content, tagging of own or others‘ content, and some ability to control privacy and sharing.
Other more technical features, including a public API (Application Programming Interface) to allow third-party enhancements and ―mash-ups‖, and embedding of various rich content types (e.g. Flash videos), and communication with other users through internal email or IM systems (Cormode and Krishnamurthy, 2008).
Moreover, as mentioned before, Web 2.0 enables conversations, information sharing, collaboration, networking, and so on. Cook (2008) lists four primary functions of social software:
Communication: Communication platforms allow people to converse with others, either by text, image, voice or video – or a combination of these. Examples include discussion forums, blogs, instant messaging, social presence, and virtual worlds. Cooperation: Sharing software enables people to share content with others in
structures and unstructured ways, for instance, image and video sharing.
Collaboration: Collaboration tools encourage people to collaborate with each other on particular problems, directly and indirectly, in both central and distributed ways. Examples include wikis and human-based computing.
Connection: Networking technologies make it possible for people to make connections with and between both content and other people. Social networking is the most prevalent example of a connecting technology. (Cook, 2008).
Level 3: applications which could only exist on the internet, derived from the human connections and network effects – and growing in power the more people use them. For example eBay, Wikipedia, et cetera.
Level 2: applications which operate offline but which gain advantages from going online. Photo-sharing site Flickr is an example of a level 2 Web 2.0 application.
Level 1: applications also available offline but which gain features online. Examples include Google Docs, iTunes, et cetera.
Level 0: applications that would work as well offline. (Cook, 2008).
Because a level three website obviously contains at least some of the primary functions of social software listed by Cook (2008), it represents a totally Web 2.0 website. On the other hand, a level zero one contains none of the primary functions of social software and, therefore, is very Web 1.0.
But still many sites are hard to categorize strictly as Web1 or Web2. For example, Amazon.com launched in the mid-1990s and has gradually added features over time. The principal content (product descriptions) is curated rather than user-created, but much of the value is added by reviews and ratings submitted by users (Cormode and Krishnamurthy, 2008). Like Amazon.com, more and more websites are (slowly) migrating from a Web 1.0 website to a Web 2.0 website by adding blogs, chat, ratings, and so forth.
Web 2.0 component Explanation Corresponding Website Explanation
Online social network
An online social network is a social structure made of individuals or organisations, which are connected by one or more specific types of interdependency
Facebook/ Hyves
Social networking sites. The focus of these websites is on keeping in touch with existing friends and making new friends
A business-oriented social
networking site used for professional networking
Online community
An online community is a social network of individuals who interact through specific media, potentially crossing geographical and political boundaries in order to pursue mutual interests or goals. One of the most pervasive types of virtual community includes social networking services, which consist of various online communities.
Flickr
An online photo community where photos can be tagged and shared.
Slideshare
Offers users the ability to upload and share publicly or privately
PowerPoint presentations, Word documents and Adobe PDF Portfolios.
rabostarterscommunity.nl
A community for SME entrepreneurs starting a new organisation
Wiki
A collaborative website which can be directly edited by anyone with access to it
Wikipedia
It is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopaedia project
(Micro-)Blog
A website, maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or material such as graphics and video
Forum
An online discussion site
Tweakers.net
An electronics and technology forum
Virtual world
A virtual world is a genre of online community that takes the form of a computer-based simulated
environment
Second Life
It enables its users, called Residents, to interact with each other through avatars.
Really Simple Syndication (RSS)
A family of web feed formats used to publish frequently updated works, such as blog entries, news headlines, audio, and video, in a standardized format
NA
NA
Figure 1. Web 2.0 applications
Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0
Figure 2. Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0
The image compares Web 2.0 with Web 1.0 and explains how things have changed since the web culture has revolutionized. Webmaster and user interaction no longer depends on direct means of communication rather a whole new system of social interaction has evolved that includes RSS and also the use of social networking sites (Sizlopedia.com).
Web 1.0 Web 2.0
Status Static Dynamic
Users Passive Active
Communications Closed Collaborative
Openness to modify content Client-server Peer-to-peer
Content providers Companies Communities
Structure to create content Top down Bottom up
Table 2. Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0
Enterprise 2.0
Web 2.0 has penetrated the personal lives of many consumers. Especially for the younger generation (below the age of thirty) websites like Facebook, Twitter, Hyves, You Tube, and so on have become part of their lives. However, also many of the other generations have found their way to social software.
Not only that, but social software is also finding its way into previously untouchable industries. Whether by invitation or as gatecrasher, it is slowly blurring the boundaries between professional and amateur practice, as well as professional and personal lives (Cook, 2008). Workers under 30 are not only more likely to adopt social-computing platforms, but generally expect to use them in the workplace (Bennet, 2008). Employees are starting to communicate with each other and with people outside the organisation via Web 2.0 technologies. Furthermore, communicating by means of social software has become so obvious for many consumers that they desire the ability to communicate in the same way with organisations.
Just in the last years organisations have begun to show interest in Web 2.0 technologies. Perhaps that is not unwise, not only because social software has become such an important part in our personal lives, but also because organisations have to become more agile and flexible in order to continuously adapt to the constantly changing environment.
Furthermore, as global market opportunities and competition increase, collaboration is becoming more and more essential for improving productivity and accelerating innovation at the personal, team, group, enterprise, and business coalition levels (Cañas, Hierro, Lizcano, Reyes and Soriano, 2007). Collaboration is central in Web 2.0 technologies. All the more reason for organisations to look into the benefits Web 2.0 may hold for them.
There has also been a growing awareness among large businesses that popular consumer websites like Facebook and social bookmarking sites, such as del.icio.us, may hold benefits for corporate information management. At this moment a large part of the information and knowledge inside many organisations is hard to find, not being reused, and tends to get lost (Bennet, 2008).
Organisations using Web 2.0 successfully should be able to take advantage of trends more quickly than their non 2.0 competitors, listen and respond to customer feedback to rapidly fix problems or create new solutions to meet their demands, and both increase revenue while decreasing costs (Duhon, 2008).
achieving widespread use in the consumer and personal sphere, most businesses are no more than in the early stages of adopting social software tools for mainstream internal collaboration, external communication and customer engagements (McKinnon, 2009).
People started thinking about the new ‗Web 2.0‘ concepts outlined by Tim O‘Reilly and John Batelle, and how this might play out in the enterprise. The first to put a name to this thinking was Harvard Business School‘s Andrew McAfee (Cook, 2008). McAfee coined the term ‗Enterprise 2.0‘ in the Spring of 2006, in an MIT SLOAN Management Review article entitled "Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration," as a parallel (but distinct) term from Web 2.0 (popularized by Tim O 'Reilly in 2004). Enterprise 2.0 is a topic that has been building in awareness since then.
Enterprise 2.0 in principle
Like there is no universal definition for the term Web 2.0, the same goes for the term Enterprise 2.0. McAfee defines it as the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers (Cook, 2008; Jedd, 2008). He described it as an emerging, low-cost form of collaborative knowledge management – effectively social networking for business. It is an efficient and immediate method of spreading a company‘s most useful information to all its employees, much in the same way that Web consumers access information on Wikipedia, or Facebook (Woodward, 2008). In other words, social software used in the organisation. McAfee said that Enterprise 2.0 was ―freeform, emergent, social software‖ that could significantly improve the ways that employees in all organisations work and collaborate together (Woodward, 2008).
McAfee uses the term Enterprise 2.0 to focus only on those Web 2.0 platforms that companies can buy or build in order to make visible the practices and outputs of their knowledge workers. He provided a framework of the six components of Enterprise 2.0 technology called "SLATES" (McAfee, 2006). The acronym SLATES stands for:
Search. For any information platform to be valuable, its users must be able to find what they are looking for.
Links Links are a guide to what is important and provide structure to online content. In this structure, the best pages are the ones that are most frequently linked to.
experience, a comment, a fact, an edit, a link, and so on, and authorship is a way to elicit these contributions.
Tags Content categorization by users by letting them attach simple one-word descriptions. The categorization system that emerges from tagging is called a folksonomy (a categorization system developed over time by folks).
Extensions Moderately ―smart‖ computers take tagging one step further by automating some of the work of categorization and pattern matching. They use algorithms to say to users, ―if you liked that, then by extension you will like this‖.
Signals Even with powerful tools to search and categorize content, a user can easily feel overwhelmed. New content is added so often that it can become a full-time job just to check for updates on all sites of interest. The final element of the SLATES infrastructure is technology that signals users when new content of interest appears, for instance by RSS (really simple syndication).
Figure 3. SLATES framework and FLATNESSES framework (Cook, 2008)
Enterprise 2.0 internal conditions
In the same way that the Internet gave rise to the intranet, Web 2.0 is undoubtedly giving rise to Enterprise 2.0 (Cook, 2008) So it may seem as if Enterprise 2.0 is mainly about technology and that all an organisation has to do to become a 2.0 organisation is implementing Enterprise 2.0 technologies. Although he suggests otherwise, also McAfee‘s trends are still primarily technological.
Bennet (2008) says that the degree to which workers adopt voluntary collaboration tools is 99 percent culture, one percent technology. An organisation wanting to become an Enterprise 2.0 organisation has to have a culture that supports the Web 2.0 technology, or even the other way around. Because of the open and collaborative nature of the 2.0 tools, an organisational culture is needed that supports, stimulates or even rewards openness, collaboration and participation (Bennet, 2008; Duhon, 2008; Jedd, 2008; Keldsen, 2008a). For instance, while having the capability to quickly find people is a technology that could easily be purchased or otherwise acquired and implemented, if the culture of your organisation enforces an ―every man (or department) for himself‖, simply dropping in some new technical facility will not foster the sort of interactions that will make connections happen (Keldsen, 2008a).
Furthermore, transparency of systems and information is needed. A culture that supports that is necessary, because employees may be afraid of that transparency, thinking ―if I share this I am not going to get the reward.‖
The more social tools you have can be perceived as more threatening to some people (Jedd, 2008). An organisational culture that supports and has faith in collaboration and openness is essential to working with Web 2.0 technologies and becoming an Enterprise 2.0. If the people inside the organisation are afraid to share information or are not willing to collaborate, there is no point in implementing open and collaborative technologies.
It concerns the entire organisation including the top managers. They also have to become more open in their communication and have trust in sharing information. Social media use in business means accepting very open conversations across the business, and from top to bottom (Woodward, 2008). Managerial support and leadership of Enterprise 2.0 initiatives is also crucial. Transformation does not happen until leadership is participating and is using the Web 2.0 technologies to help manage the business (Jedd, 2008). Management must lead by example.
approach with regard to managing the deployment and usage of technology within their institutions (Marfleet, 2008). The changes in the distribution of control also raise hurdles for the IT workers who deploy the technologic applications.
IT departments must focus on how people use or do not use the technology, something they have not historically done. In the old days, it was "plan, build, run." With social media it is critical for the IT group to stay involved after deployment, to help users adapt and to observe how they use the tools, so they can respond to immediate needs and anticipate future requirements. The notion of sticking around to observe what needs emerge while workers use technology is critical to a successful Enterprise 2.0 deployment. In the past it is been de
rigueur for developers to impose a workflow and privilege structure on enterprise applications
prior to deployment. With Web 2.0 applications, the key to success is to release applications with limited structures (Bennet, 2008).
Enterprise 2.0 organisations require a modular, flexible, and democratic structure (Tapscot. 2006; Woodward, 2008). Furthermore, enterprise integration provides the backbone for the new enterprise. It enables an organisation to move beyond the old hierarchy, because layers of management are not required when information is instantly available electronically (Tapscot, 2006). Used constructively social media could help alter the shape of the organisation, from a tall hierarchy to a flat, fully-networked team of decision makers that operates in a decentralized manner to fulfil individual and common goals (Tapscot, 2006; Woodward, 2008). The old hierarchical ways of organizing work and innovation do not afford the level of agility, creativity, and connectivity that companies require to remain competitive in today‘s environment (Cook, 2008).
Enterprise 2.0 internal benefits
Although Web 2.0 is seen by most to be focused on consumer and public-facing websites, however that distinction was not actually explicitly made in the original definition, Enterprise 2.0 is much more about enterprise adoption of "2.0 mindsets" than the "pure" consumer facing side of the coin (Keldsen, 2008c). Those 2.0 mindsets refer to terms like communication, cooperation, collaboration, and connection, also mentioned earlier as the primary functions of social software.
outside the organisation (partners, customers, et cetera). "Social" information in the enterprise remains almost completely hidden, buried in the channels of email, instant messaging, phone conversations, and other (typically) one-to-one communication mediums that may be searchable individually, but certainly not as a cohesive whole ( Keldsen, 2008b).
Enterprise 2.0 is very much about collaboration and the sharing of information in an efficient and interactive way within the organisation and between the organisation and its stakeholders.
The Web 2.0 like technology inside the organisation helps facilitating that. It makes communicating, connecting, collaborating, and cooperating easier. For instance, if the technologies are used right, it organizes information and it can be shared and reused more easily. In addition, the open nature of Web 2.0 technologies allow people to ask questions that they might not think of or might not be comfortable asking in a more direct way. In other words it means that previously unheard voices have an opportunity to be heard (Bennet, 2008; Birkenshaw and Crainer, 2009).
Another example sharing knowledge 2.0 style is an employee in one part of the world discovering an external Web page of interest and tagging the page to automatically share with others within the organisation with a similar interest (Jedd, 2008). Furthermore, most large organisations today are geographically dispersed. This fuels a need for people to communicate and work together while being separated by great distances. Networking technologies allow companies to run cohesive yet decentralized operations by linking employees in virtual teams and communities of practice (Tapscot, 2006).
Previous tools for sharing and collaborating have primarily consisted of email, work productivity desktop applications and portals - very structured and rigid in their set up and interaction, and never really providing a free form medium for users to leave their impressions and opinions behind in the way that the class of Enterprise 2.0 applications are providing (Gupta and Carpenter, 2008). Enterprise 2.0 stands to supplant other communication and knowledge management systems because of its ability to capture tacit knowledge, best practices, and relevant experiences throughout a company, making this information readily available to more users (Jedd, 2008).
subscription-based information distribution tools (like Enterprise RSS feeds), et cetera (Cañas et al., 2007).
Enterprise 2.0 externally
Since my research focuses on organisations being 2.0 towards their customers I will go into that subject a bit further. Being 2.0 towards the other organisational stakeholders is left out of consideration in this research thesis.
Social software will have a substantial impact on the future of the way we work, not only inside the organisation, but also very much externally. The way employees interact with customers will drastically change – and perhaps it already has. The corporate membrane is getting more and more porous. Customers want to see inside your organisation, they want to talk to the people who make it what it is; they want to hear the stories. What they do not want to hear is you telling them why your company, product and services are the best (Cook, 2008). Furthermore, everyday consumers are wielding greater control over their media habits and their role in the commercial marketplace (Riegner, 2007). Customers nowadays have become better informed and more demanding. They often require fully integrated solutions, customized to their ever-changing tastes.
The organisational challenge of delivering such customised products, services, and, increasingly, experiences, is compelling companies to redesign their business models. New models must transcend traditional business segments in order to build the capability to deliver integrated value offerings (Tapscot, 2006). The pace of change and the evolving demands of customers are such firms can no longer depend only on internal capabilities to meet external needs (Cook, 2008).
The phenomena mentioned above are all reasons why organisations should be seriously considering becoming 2.0 towards their customers. In addition, Cook (2008) says: ―People are communicating with each other online and they are talking about your company (and if they are not, then you have an even bigger problem)‖.
Organisations can be 2.0 towards their customers in several areas. This research focuses on the organisational processes: marketing, customer relationship management/customer service, innovation/development, and sales.
complaints of customers online. Yehuda (2008) says that organisations have to interact with their customers. He says that, as media have become vastly more fragmented, traditional outlets such as TV and radio are being supplemented by a surplus of information giving outlets —Web sites, blogs, forums, et cetera. Hence, organisations should include these new information outlets in their marketing strategy. In addition, Web 2.0 technology helps to migrate the relationship between the organisation and its customers to an interactive level where technology contributes to brand building by creating and sustaining a long-term relationship with the customer (Cullinane, Singh and Veron-Jackson, 2008). As mentioned before, people are talking about organisations online and some of those conversations might not be very positive and therefore may be harmful to the organisations brand. Online brand/reputation management is therefore another important issue that an organisation should address.
Furthermore, organisations can involve their customers in the innovation and/or development process by means of crowd sourcing or co-creation. They should, because the meaning of value and the process of value creation are rapidly shifting from a product- and firm-centric view to personalized consumer experiences. Informed, networked, empowered, and active consumers are increasingly co-creating value with the firm.
The interaction between the firm and the consumer is becoming central in value creation and value extraction (Pralahad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Crowd sourcing is a problem-solving and idea generating process in which an organisation throws out a well-specified problem to a selected crowd or group of people for solution (Shuen, 2008). With co-creation the involvement of the customer goes a step further. With co-creation consumers enter into the process of both production and innovation through the provenance of new web-based technologies that enable devoted micro-communities of consumers to engage in various stages of the process of production and innovation (Banks et al., 2008).
As for Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 communication, collaboration, cooperation, and connection are the main principles; the same goes off course for the interaction with the customer in a 2.0 fashion. The more of these principles are being addressed by the organisation in its interaction with its customers, the more 2.0 the organisation is towards them.
Becoming Enterprise 2.0
list of guidelines organisations can follow. However, after studying the literature about Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0, one could conclude that for organisations the best way to become an complete Enterprise 2.0, is to start with adopting Web 2.0 technology and the corresponding values internally, the latter meaning adapting the organisations internal conditions to support the use of the technology. Only when the new technology and values are imbedded in the organisation, should the organisation engage itself with becoming 2.0 to its other stakeholders, like partners, suppliers, and customers.
Van Doremaele, de Koning, and van der Sleen (2009) provide an Enterprise 2.0 growth model, which offers a general description of the phases an organisation should go through to become totally Enterprise 2.0. In short the model describes how to integrate Enterprise 2.0 technologies in the organisation in three phases: the pioneering phase; the facilitating phase; and the strategic phase. In the third phase of the model, the strategic phase, the organisational structure and culture are adapted to the use of Enterprise 2.0 software. According to van Doremaele, it is not until the organisation, or the concerning department of the organisation, finds itself in the last stages of the strategic phase that it is ready to start interacting with its stakeholders in a 2.0 fashion (Interview with van Doremaele, 10 November 2009).
For many existing organisations becoming a totally Enterprise 2.0 organisation can seem too big a change. To benefit from Web 2.0 technology, they have to change their internal conditions or implement new technologies, or in most cases both. In addition, as the Internet evolves beyond a presentation medium to a global computational platform it enables engagement and collaboration with and among all the stakeholders of the corporation (Tapscot, 2006). Thus, on top of changing into an Enterprise 2.0 internally, organisations also have to deal with becoming 2.0 towards their other stakeholders such as their partners, suppliers, and customers. Because of the magnitude of the transformation, becoming fully Enterprise 2.0 most probably would mean a long-term plan for many organisations.
FOUR QUADRANTS OF WEB AND ENTERPRISE
Figure 4. Web/Enterprise Quadrants
Quadrant I: Full-fledged Enterprise 2.0
An organisation in Quadrant I is a full-fledged Enterprise 2.0. An organisation finding itself in this quadrant is an open, flexible and agile one. The internal organisation is characterized by a more democratic structure and significantly less hierarchy, meaning it is a flatter organisation. There is talk of decentralisation, although sometimes in combination with centralisation. The organisation‘s strategy is established top-down, but bottom-up realized. There is significantly less control within the organisation, because trust is high. The organisational culture is one of participation and collaboration. Transparency in information and systems is high and information is being created, reused, and shared. Communication is informal. Within the organisation there is freedom to work lateral and diagonal. Furthermore, the organisation facilitates and stimulates flexible working (time and place). Very important are the social networks (organisation, employees, suppliers, partners, customers, et cetera) that characterizes an organisation in this quadrant (Bennet, 2008; Cook, 2008; Duhon, 2008; Jedd, 2008; Keldsen, 2008a; Woodward, 2008).
However, the organisation also successfully applies Web 2.0 technology in its interaction with its stakeholders, especially with its customers. By utilizing Web 2.0 technology in the interaction with, for instance, its customers, the organisation is where its customers are and they can increase customer engagement and loyalty. Furthermore, by using Web 2.0 technologies as crowd-sourcing and co-creation, the organisation benefits from the knowledge and creativity of its customers. The organisation actively utilizes a variety of Web 2.0 applications, like online communities and social networks, forums, blogs, crowd-sourcing, et cetera, for the purpose of various organisational processes, like CRM, service, marketing, sales, and development.
This quadrant is also where the customer is situated. Customers nowadays have become better informed and more demanding. They want to see inside the organisation and talk to the people who make it what it is. They desire products and services customized to their wishes. The use of social software is already embedded in the personal lives of the customers and they expect to be able to interact with the organisation in a Web 2.0 way. Consequently, this is the quadrant organisations must strive to get to, in order to benefit optimally from Web 2.0 and to satisfy its customers.
Quadrant II: Technologically lacking Enterprise 2.0
Organisations in Quadrant II inherently have the necessary internal conditions to implement and operate Web 2.0 technologies and applications. They are already very far in the transition to a full-fledged Enterprise 2.0. These organisations need to select and implement appropriate Web 2.0 technologies and applications. This requires business analysis and technical expertise, but it should not take long for organisations to evolve to be full-fledged Enterprise 2.0.
However, what these organisations have to take into account is that, although they are used to being open, flexible, and agile internally, they have to integrate those values in their external interaction as well. The organisation situated in this quadrant must become more open and transparent in its communication with its customers. Two-way interaction with the customer must not only be made possible, but must be desired by the organisation.
Quadrant III: Pure Enterprise 1.0
Most organisations will find themselves situated somewhere in Quadrant III if they have not implemented Web 2.0 technology and applications. These organisations are still solely or primarily using Web 1.0 technology, internally as well as externally. Consequently, they also still have an Enterprise 1.0 internal design, to a more or lesser extent. There is a high degree of hierarchy in the organisation, a high degree of centralisation, management is top-down, there is a high level of control, communication lines are long and formal, and information is hard to find and not being shared or reused.
For organisations situated in Quadrant III the transformation into a full-fledged Enterprise 2.0 is the biggest compared to organisations in the other quadrants. If there was time enough, organisations situated in this quadrant should focus on transforming into an Enterprise 2.0 organisation situated in Quadrant II, as suggested by some researchers (e.g. van Doremaele, de Koning, and van der Sleen, 2009). However, as established before, time is limited because customers are already on Quadrant I and look forward to communicating with organisations in a Web 2.0 way, and organisations are compelled to act fast. Organisations have to move directly to Quadrant I from Quadrant III. For this reason, they have to change their internal conditions while adopting Web 2.0 technologies and applications.
Quadrant IV: Misled Enterprise
If an organisation finds itself being situated in quadrant IV, it has focussed too much on the implementation of the Web 2.0 technology and applications. It has neglected or failed to embed the new technology in the organisation. In an organisation like this, there is lack of fit between the organisation‘s structure, culture, leadership style, communication, et cetera and the technology. The new technology is available, but the workforce sticks to using the Web 1.0 technology they are used to.
The advantage of this organisation, however, is that its management acknowledges the importance of Web 2.0 technology. They are aware of customers‘ demands and social changes and able to notice and implement necessary Web 2.0 technologies and applications. They are willing, but they just went about it the wrong way. They are unaware about the impact Web 2.0 technology has on the organisation if it were to be used successfully.
One dangerous problem organisations in Quadrant IV can have is that they are likely to think themselves as an Enterprise 2.0, because they have the latest and advanced Web 2.0 sites. It is not easy for these misled organisations to realize that having Web 2.0 sites does not make themselves Enterprise 2.0.
METHODODOLOGY
In this section of this research thesis I will describe how this study was set up in order to answer the previously formulated research questions. I will explain how the processes of data collection and data analysis, required for this research, were executed.
Set-up
I did this research in association with the departments ―Customer Behaviour‖ and ―Business Innovation‖ of TNO ICT. Together with TNO a general research objective was formed: organisations, Web 2.0 technology and the customer. I studied the literature concerning the topics Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 to gather the necessary background knowledge to do this research. The focus of this literature research was on writings concerning the description of the topics and the use of the technology. The technical background of the technology is left out of consideration in this research.
In addition to the literature I studied, I had a few conversations with employees of TNO working with projects related to Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 subjects, to share their knowledge and insights.
By studying the literature and having these conversations, I gained a clear picture of what the topics Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 imply. We then established the final research objective of this research: providing immediate actions organisations can take to move towards Enterprise 2.0 by recommending Web 2.0 tools and the most important aspects they should consider in changing their internal conditions.
The data required for this qualitative research was gathered by means of four semi structured in-depth interviews. In addition, two cases were studied. I chose this method of data collection because of the exploratory nature of this research.
The selection of the organisations at which I conducted the interviews was based on the following criteria;
- First, given this research concerns Web 2.0 activities towards the customer, the selected organisations have to, to some extent, apply 2.0 activities in their interaction with their customers.
- Second, because I wanted to conduct interviews for this research I limited the search to organisations stationed in the Netherlands and operating in the Dutch market.
- Third, the selected organisations have to be operating in the consumer market, because this research concerns Web 2.0 activities towards the customers in the consumer market.
These were the only requirements for the participating organisations due to the small number of organisations in the Netherlands that are known to have external 2.0 activities.
I found organisations that met these criteria in the literature I studied and by searching on the internet. In addition, I asked employees from TNO ICT (the organisation for which I do this research) who are in direct contact with organisations if one of their contacts met the criteria for my research. From this, I gathered a small list of appropriate organisations to conduct interviews.
I contacted the suitable organisations by telephone in order to come in contact with the manager who is responsible for the online activities of the organisation. Following, I send the person concerned an email with a description of my research and the request to participate. Due to the fact that some organisations have policy not to participate in any interviews of students and the fact the list of appropriate organisations was small, I could only find people from four different organisations willing to participate in my research. With the ones that agreed to an interview I made an appointment to conduct the interview face-to-face.
They consisted of five questions about the background of the organisation (Mission, structure, culture, et cetera), followed by a number of questions focussed on the 2.0 technologies used by the organisations in the interaction with their customers, and various questions concerning the effects of the 2.0 technologies on the internal organisation. I finished each interview with some open questions, so that the interviewee could ad things to the conversation that he or she found important to share concerning the subject. The list of interview questions can be found in appendix A.
I conducted the interviews with the following persons; - Maarten Korz, Innovation Manager at Rabobank - Erik van der Kooij, Manager Online Sales at Telfort
- Dirk Buursma, Head of Operations within the Online Service Unit at Vodafone - Ronald Sutmuller, Media Relations Manager at UPC Netherlands
After conducting each interview, which I had recorded with a voice recorder, I structured the information given by the interviewees according to the interview questions and I sent an interview report to every participant. In addition to the interview report, I also sent a short analysis of the interview reports to the participants.
These short analysis included a categorisation of Web 2.0 activities utilised by the organisation into organisational processes, like marketing, customer relationship management, and sales. Furthermore, it included a categorisation of their core objectives into the three value disciplines, ―Operational excellence‖, ―Product leadership‖, and ―Customer intimacy‖ of Treacy and Wiersema (1995).
I sent these reports to the participants so they could give feedback on my findings and I could make sure that I had interpreted their answers right.
In addition to the interviews two cases were studied for this research. The cases were selected on the same criteria as the interview participants. The cases were selected after the interviews were conducted. Another criterion for the cases was that they contributed to the interviews by giving a broader insight in how organisations apply 2.0 technologies towards their customers. I have added this extra criterion because some of the Web 2.0 tools described in the literature did not come forward in the interviews very strong. Therefore, I searched for cases in which such Web 2.0 tools were applied more clearly or examples of making use of Web 2.0 tools in a way that differed from those represented in the interviews. The cases selected are Grolsch and KLM.
The data concerning Grolsch, I found searching the internet. I studied their Website and I also found a perfect example of a Web 2.0 activity they applied in their interaction with their customers on Slideshare. Furthermore, I Googled Grolsch for other Web 2.0 activities.
The data concerning KLM, I gathered from an interview with KLM concerning KLM Bluelab in a research paper from Kim op den Kamp. She did research for TNO ICT on co-creation. I contacted the interviewee of KLM to ask for permission to use the data from the interview, which I got. However she was not willing to give additional information that would contribute to my research. In addition to the data from the interview, I also studied the Website of KLM and I searched the internet on other Web 2.0 activities KLM utilizes.
Data analysis
The gathered data from the interviews and the cases was analysed and compared to each other. First, as mentioned above, I structured the information given by the interviewees according to the interview questions so that the data from the interviews became more clear and more easily comparable to each other.
Second, as mentioned in the data collection section, I categorised the core objectives of the organisations into the three value disciplines of Treacy and Wiersema (1995). Those value disciplines are ―Operational excellence‖, ―Product leadership‖, and ―Customer intimacy‖.
can to achieve an optimal result and/or an optimal value in everything the customer purchases from the organisation.
Organisations can have very different core objectives; however they can all be divided into the three value discipline of Treacy and Wiersema (1995). I categorised the core objectives into the value disciplines in order to make it easier to find out if the core objective of an organisation is an influencing factor on the way an organisation interacts with its customers in a Web 2.0 fashion. Having a certain core objective could affect the choice of Web 2.0 activities an organisation should apply.
I analysed the gathered data on organisational features, such as product or service, size, structure, and culture, from which I made a clarifying table. I did this in order to see if prominent differences in the data could be a consequence of an organisational feature.
Furthermore, I analysed the data on the Web 2.0 tools used by the organisations. I categorised the tools according to how they are used in terms of organisational processes. I used the organisational processes: marketing, customer relationship management (CRM), service, sales, and development, because these are the organisational processes that (can) involve the customer. Although service is part of CRM, I made a distinction between the two of them, because not all CRM activities are service related. This distinction can also be seen in the utilisation of the Web 2.0 tools.
In addition I looked at the way the various tools were used, as some Web 2.0 tools can be used in different ways. I also made a clarifying table from this data.
In order to make the internal reliability of this research higher, I asked three people to analyse the data from the interviews and the cases on the same issues I did. The reports of their findings can be found in appendix B. Because their findings correspond about eighty percent to those of mine they contribute to the internal reliability of this research.
With the outcomes of my analyses of the collected data I assessed the positions of the organisations on the quadrants.
RESULTS
As mentioned in the method section, I examined six organisations that have already taken the first steps in becoming 2.0 towards their customers. The table below shows the organisational facts of each of the examined organisation.
Organisation Industry Number of employees in
the Netherlands (World)
Rabobank Banking 6,200 (59,000)
Telfort Mobile Telecom/Internet 500+
Vodafone Mobile Telecom 2,800 (+/-79,000)
UPC Internet/TV/Telecom 450 (15,000)
Grolsch Brewery +/- 805
KLM Airline 32555
Table 3. Organisational facts
The following tables depict the results derived from the interviews I conducted and the two cases I have studied. The first table shows the organisations and their corresponding value discipline. I established what the value discipline of each organisation was by taking their core objective, mission and vision, et cetera, into account. The established value disciplines were confirmed by the organisations. The second table depicts the Web 2.0 tools used by the studied organisations and the organisational processes they are used for. I selected these concerning organisational processes, because these processes often involve, affect, or are influenced by the customer. The third table shows the internal organisational design factors of the studied organisations. I selected the concerning categories, because these are most discussed in the literature concerning Enterprise 2.0 (e.g. Bennet, 2008; Jedd, 2008; Tapscot, 2006; Woodward, 2008) and came forward most in the conducted interviews.
Following the tables, the results of the interviews and the two cases are described in detail in six cases. In every case first the internal organisational factors will be described followed by the online 2.0 activities the organisation in question utilises.
Value discipline Rabobank Customer intimacy
Telfort Operational excellence
Vodafone Customer intimacy
UPC Product leadership
Grolsch Product leadership
KLM Product leadership or
Responsible for Web 2.0 activities
CRM Service Marketing Sales Development
Rabobank
Local offices and innovation management
You Tube Wikipedia
Online communities Online social networks Slideshare/Marketingfacts Online communities Online social networks Chatbot You Tube Online communities Online social networks Crowd-sourcing
Online communities Crowd-sourcing
Telfort
Committee of people from various departments
Weblog Twitter You Tube Twitter
Vodafone
Online Service Unit
Slideshare
Web Relations team Vodafone 360
Forum YouTube
Online social networks
UPC
Webcare team Online communities Online panel Slideshare
Twitter You Tube
Flickr Online games Online panel Grolsch Online communities Slideshare/Marketingfacts Flickr Online communities Platform YouTube KLM Different departments depending on the activity Twitter Slideshare
YouTube Online community
Structure Culture Leadership Communication Technology Human Relations Rabobank Cooperative society Bottom-up Little hierarchy Much autonomy Openness Trust Informal Bottom-up Transparent Informal Employees that are keen on the use of 2.0 technologies Young employees Telfort Classical Flexible Fast decision making Simplicity Short communication lines Flexible Young employees Vodafone Classical Independently operating Online Service Unit Hierarchic Much autonomy Flexible Agile Trust Openness Simplicity Balances control and empowerment Openness Open Informal Fast Employees that are accustomed to working online Young employees UPC Classical Open Agile Collaborative Management acknowledges the value of the Web
Case 1: Rabobank The organisation
Rabobank is a Dutch cooperative organisation in financial services, private as well as business. It is active in 144 countries, but most of its offices are situated in the Netherlands.
Rabobank is a cooperative society; therefore the local offices have much autonomy. Rabobank has an informal culture. The internal culture of Rabobank already fits being 2.0 towards the customer, it is a culture which emphasises things as openness, trust, and flexibility. However, it does differ among the different offices. At some of the offices the directors are very keen on the use of 2.0 technology and they push the use of it. Other offices in the same work area observe that and also start using it. This phenomenon also makes it easier for Rabobank to innovate. There are many initiatives non central, and Rabobank picks out the initiatives that are going well and introduces them centrally. Rabobank is a bottom-up driven organisation.
Rabobank has not become another organisation because of the use of social media. Rabobank is a very informal organisation where there is much less hierarchy than in other banks. Because of the use of the new technologies the formal lines disappear even more.
Communication has become more transparent because of the technology and it is made a lot easier. However, the technology does not bring it about, but it does simplify and accelerate communication.
Rabobank‘s three core values are; being close to the customer; being involved with the customer; and being leading to the customer. Its core objective is creating value for the customer. According to the three value disciplines of Treacy and Wiersema (1995), this core objective equals the value discipline Customer intimacy. Rabobank already uses many 2.0 initiatives towards its customers.
Online 2.0 activities
