<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Enterprise 2.0 Pilots. Yes or No? It depends</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.socialenterprise.it/en/index.php/2010/04/23/enterprise-2-0-pilots-yes-or-no-it-depends/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.socialenterprise.it/en/index.php/2010/04/23/enterprise-2-0-pilots-yes-or-no-it-depends/</link>
	<description>Social Enterprise: Il social dentro l&#039;azienda</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:21:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bertrand Duperrin</title>
		<link>http://www.socialenterprise.it/en/index.php/2010/04/23/enterprise-2-0-pilots-yes-or-no-it-depends/comment-page-1/#comment-1116</link>
		<dc:creator>Bertrand Duperrin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:43:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialenterprise.it/?p=469#comment-1116</guid>
		<description>I agree with you. I think that McAfee&#039;s reasoning applies to many cases but the underlying assumption is that pilots are made only for over &quot;over the flox&quot; experimentations.

You can also socialize teams or &quot;organic group&quot; in the workplace whose size is limited by definition and whose success will be driven but the existence of a clear, shared, common purpose. I usually call it &quot;sense and alignment&quot;.

It also depends on the company&#039;s culture : some are more likely to start with in-the-flow things because it sounds more like &quot;real work&quot; while some are ready to embrace a &quot;full social experience&quot;.

In my opinion a comprehensive enterprise 2.0 pilot should include both because companies also have to learn how to articulate. Small purpose driven groups and large interest-driven communties and networks, people being supposed to be a part of both depending on sense and their desire to expose themselves or not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you. I think that McAfee&#8217;s reasoning applies to many cases but the underlying assumption is that pilots are made only for over &#8220;over the flox&#8221; experimentations.</p>
<p>You can also socialize teams or &#8220;organic group&#8221; in the workplace whose size is limited by definition and whose success will be driven but the existence of a clear, shared, common purpose. I usually call it &#8220;sense and alignment&#8221;.</p>
<p>It also depends on the company&#8217;s culture : some are more likely to start with in-the-flow things because it sounds more like &#8220;real work&#8221; while some are ready to embrace a &#8220;full social experience&#8221;.</p>
<p>In my opinion a comprehensive enterprise 2.0 pilot should include both because companies also have to learn how to articulate. Small purpose driven groups and large interest-driven communties and networks, people being supposed to be a part of both depending on sense and their desire to expose themselves or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

