Thursday 29 March 2007

Saving E2.0's Soul

I've always been a fan of Tom Davenport and was disappointed that when he was last in Australia I ended up being elsewhere, so I didn't get to hear him speak in person. Its also a shame that Davenport doesn't really blog; not quite as bad as Ray Ozzie, but I feel the blogosphere doesn't appear to hold much attraction for him. So in some respects we shouldn't be surprised by his suggestion that Enterprise 2.0 is more likely to be the "next small thing". Commenting on the vision put forward for E2.0, Davenport says:

"Such a utopian vision can hardly be achieved through new technology alone. The absence of participative technologies in the past is not the only reason that organizations and expertise are hierarchical. Enterprise 2.0 software and the Internet won't make organizational hierarchy and politics go away."

Mike Gotta - following Davenport and a response from Andrew McAfee - adds this analysis:

"I have a slight disagreement with Andrew McAfee that these tools are radical departures from previous generations of communication and collaboration technology. I see these technologies more as a natural progression. Tools emerging under the category of social software are benefiting from common application, infrastructure and network services that were not mature in the eighties and nineties. There was a reason e-mail was the "killer app" 15 years ago. A store-forward model was the only viable design given unreliable end-to-end networks with limited bandwidth. There was a reason a platform such as Lotus Notes was such a huge hit in the market."

I want to put a different spin on Davenport's perspective. Firstly, he thinks that the next big thing will really be in the area of business analytics - however, I think he failing here to see what the impact Web 2.0 and other related technologies will have in this space. More on that another time maybe, but think about mashups and "Data as the Intel inside".

But the main issue I'm sure Davenport has is that he probably feels he has seen and written about this all before. One of my favorite Davenport pieces is his 1994 HBR article, Saving IT's Soul: Human-Centered Information Management. In it he presents a manifesto for building information systems that focus on how people use information, rather than machines. He suggests that human centred information management should:

  • Focus on broad information types;
  • Emphasize information use and sharing;
  • Assume transience of solutions;
  • Assume multiple meanings of terms;
  • Continue until desired behaviour is achieved enterprisewide;
  • Build point-specific structures;
  • Assume compliance is gained over time through influence; and
  • Let individuals design their own information environments.

Pretty good for 1994 don't you think? No wonder he thinks E2.0 is old hat. But Tom - don't give up on E2.0... we need your help to save its soul too!

Wednesday 28 March 2007

You heard it here first... the online desktop vs offline Webapp debate

For a while I thought I was just some crackpot blogger questioning the value of offline Webapps, but I feel a little better now that Read/WriteWeb have entered the debate with a couple of posts today:

  • It started with this post, Adobe Apollo - On A Collision Course With Web Browsers - "It appears that, intentionally or not, Adobe is on a collision course with IE, Firefox and the rest of the Web Browsers. Firefox has already said it is looking to add support for offline applications into its next version. If this happens, it will be bad news for Apollo - because Firefox users are not going to switch. IE plans in the same space are not clear, but we can be certain that if offline mode for web applications takes off, then there will be support in IE."
  • And was followed by this, Point/Counterpoint: Which is better, an offline Web App or an online Desktop App? - "This is a point/counterpoint argument, with John Milan taking the position that online desktop apps are better, while Richard MacManus argues for offline web apps."

Now that I don't feel like such crackpot (at least for asking the question), I'll put forward a couple more poorly thought out ideas for you to think about:

  • In the longterm the browser is dead, and I think the question is more about offline Webapps that work across multiple operating systems vs online operating systems - in a way I see Adobe Apollo actually challenging the value of the underlying operating system;
  • In the longterm the offline vs online doesn't matter, the future (Web 3.0?) will be peer-to-peer - I don't actually want to worry about synchronisation, I just want to access my data when I need it, from where ever I am and from what ever device I'm using... so lets actually separate the client from the data even further.

OK. I'll crawl back in my cave now. Switch off the lights please.

The Seven Step Radical RSS Reading Seminar... not really ;-)

I knew this was going to happen at some point... Attensa have posted a series of posts starting here, then here, here and here providing some advice on good RSS reading practices

Its all good advice, but I particularly like this point:

"Don’t be Afraid to Delete, and Don’t Feel Guilty About It

Give yourself permission to ignore things that don't look threatening or critical. It’s ok to delete articles that aren’t relevant."

I'm sure its only a matter of time and we'll soon see people offering courses along the lines of The Seven Step Radical RSS Reading seminar ;-)

Wondering What Wiki Will Work?

All this talking and thinking about wikis over the last few days, following from a NSW KM Forum meeting on this topic, has got me looking again at some of the wiki options out there. One useful source is WikiMatrix, which currently helps you to choose and compare 84 different wiki software options.

Wandering around the different options I began to think about what would the best approach be for someone who wants to get started with exploring wikis inside the firewall, particularly if you operate in a more restrictive IT environment or simply don't have the technical resources? Well, here are a couple of ideas:

Another issue might be that your IT department wants you to use an existing enterprise platform. An interesting discussion thread I came across in WikiMatrix is a request to add Sharepoint 2007 to the list. Apparently they need - I wonder if someone from Microsoft will step up to the plate? I wouldn't mind seeing something about the IBM Lotus options too, as there are some wiki templates for Notes and Quickplace available too.

Have fun!

Apply for the "CoP" job

More proof that knowledge management is alive, well and succeeding in some organisations - here is a great opportunity for someone passionate about Communities of Practice (CoPs):

"You will help to optimise the operation of our overall portfolio of CoP, as well as contribute to the development of the strategy, governance and operational models. Key components include providing direct assistance to CoP Coordinators and Sponsors, identifying success stories, developing education and training processes, facilitating the capture of explicit knowledge and raising the level of awareness of CoPs"

You have until April 14, 2007 to apply and can work in Perth, Brisbane or Salt Lake City!

Tuesday 27 March 2007

Reflections on last week's masterclass and the learning experience

Well, I'm back in Australia again. I actually spent the weekend in Canberra and had the opportunity to visit Questacon - an "interactive science and technology Centre" - and it was a nice reminder about the importance of play and discovery in helping children and adults alike in learning about technology and science. It reminds me of a comment from one participant in last week's masterclass about the value of attending who said it wasn't just about hearing some new ideas, but having a chance to think and discuss the issues.

Another participant also commented on my blog that:

"having an open-ended ending is interesting (though not new), but requires certain maturity (in the learners) and understanding that the learners are able to come to a sensible conclusion themselves."

A good point. Just like Questacon, the masterclass is just the beginning of a learning experience and there maybe new skills and knowledge we need to develop along the way. I know there is interest in this already and I look forward to continuing this learning conversation online with you.

Wednesday 21 March 2007

Currently in Singapore

I'm currently in Singapore with no time to blog really, respond to comments or even keep up with my RSS feeds. Very quickly:

Saturday 17 March 2007

Wikis and blogs at Accenture, Westpac and others

In the AustralianIT section of The Australian newspaper, a story interviewing some large organisation in Australia about their use of Web 2.0 technologies:

"Accenture is using wikis and blogs both internally and to talk to clients. Executives as far up the command chain as the company's global chief operating officer use blogs to communicate with staff.

The practice is already having an impact on the use of voicemail in the company and it is also starting to supplant long established collaboration tools."

An analyst interviewed for the story also commented that:

  • It will come down to a choice between web-based communications and vendor backed collaboration tools such as Microsoft's SharePoint suite.
  • It will be at least another 18 months before wikis come into widespread use within corporate environments.

Greater than the sum of the parts

This is a great presentation, in terms of both style and content, about the value of social software by Tom Coates at the Future of Web Apps conference in San Francisco in September last year. I don't have anything to say about it really but I wanted to book mark it for future reference :-)

Social software in organisations: Nature or nurture?

One of the messages coming through about using social software inside organisations (what many of us are calling Enterprise 2.0) is that it is easy to use, and therefore easy to adopt. I recently commented on Dave Snowden's blog in response to his post about "social computing" that while I thought his theory was sound he had made some assumptions about the technology, in particular this issue of ease of use. Dave in turn responded that:

"I have yet to find a social computing tool I could not pick up and use. Learning is experimentation, on line help, web sites. The includes learning how to blog and use a whole range of tools. If you have counter experience or cases please let me know as it would surprise me to find them."

Well, if you want broader evidence than my own experiences of information technology in organisations, all you have to do is look a little harder at the case studies - for instance in the recent BusinessWeek special report on wikis, they mention this:

"The experience of Nokia and Dresdner Kleinwort offer insight into how to nurture the use of a radically new technology to change the way organizations work. Clearly, not everyone recognizes the value of wikis right way. The initial efforts at Dresdner, for example, confused employees and had to be refined to make the technology easier to use. More important than tweaking the technology was a simple edict from one of the proponents: Don't send e-mails, use the wiki. Gradually, employees embraced the use of the wiki, seeing how it increased collaboration and reduced time-consuming e-mail traffic."

Confused employees... I thought this stuff was so easy that everyone could just pick it up and use? Actually, I don't see this as a negative comment against social software, but I do think we have become a little confused between the simplicity of social software and the concept of ease of use. Wikipedia's definition of ease of use is this:

"Ease of use refers to the property of a product or thing that a user can operate without having to overcome a steep learning curve. Things with high ease of use will be intuitive to the average user in the target market for the product. The term is often used as a goal during the design of a product, as well as being used for marketing purposes. Put simply, things with "high ease of use" are easy to use.

However, some experts distinguish ease of use from ease of learning, especially when the design of a product involves a tradeoff between the two goals, or between ease of use and other goals such as security."

I believe what makes social software easy to use is its simplicity. But this doesn't make them universally easy to learn without some help to get over that initial inertia. This is something I've blogged about before and I don't see anything different in the pattern of innovation with enterprise social software, except that the inherent simplicity of the tools and the prior experience of some users using social software on the Web all aid the rate of adoption.

It is also important to note that adoption of social software on the Web is different from the adoption of social software in organisations - there are different motivators and barriers to use at play. In this respect both "social software" and (worst still) "social computing" are poor terms in this context. I grant you that Enterprise 2.0 has some problems, so if you prefer a less loaded term then I would suggest "enterprise social software". But the positive thing about the term Enterprise 2.0 is that does hint at a broader change that needs to take place for social software to be successful inside the firewall, and its not just having easy to use software... so a bit of both nature and nurture is required.

Tuesday 13 March 2007

Spotting the Emperor's new clothes?

There are lots of conversations going on right now about Enterprise 2.0, but how much is just wistful thinking? In a recent post of mine, straight shooter Matt Moore challenged the hype by commenting:

"I have yet to hear of it actually [flattening and decentralising] in most organisations. It provides opportunities for that to happen but only to the extent senior management encourage this or at least do not actively prevent it."

Earlier Ross Dawson had also challenged Euan Semple about his adoption "philosophy" vs that of Andrew McAfee; Ross puts forward a view similar to the issues raised by Matt:

"I count myself as a true believer in Enterprise 2.0, but I’ve seen enough of organizations to know that the status quo has enormous power, and making good changes happen is never easy. In particular, unstructured implementation of social media tools in organizations will yield only a fraction of the value of a planned one. Yes I believe in emergence, but leadership is required to create fertile fields."

Later Andrew McAfee chips in, with a valid point, that in some organisations the approach taken by some to simply "plug in a wiki" or use a Web-hosted service isn't an option:

"The only reason I don't completely agree here is that I think Euan is assuming that in this scenario managers and IT departments are not blocking these tools at the firewall --  they're not precluding employees from using these technologies while at work... I've been in many offices where I couldn't check gmail, and it's not hard at all to imagine that many companies will try to keep employees from putting company data beyond the firewall on servers hosted by Socialtext, Zoho, Google, 37 Signals, or any of the other collaboration service providers."

Meanwhile, Bill Ives shares a new Enterprise 2.0 success story on the FASTForward blog and Dion Hinchcliffe suggests the following:

"What's a likely sweet spot for applying Enterprise 2.0 inside the firewall?  Keeping adoption of your preferred tools simple within the complex landscape of your organization so users won't prefer theirs; flatten your network as much as you can, open your systems using simple, open standards, and push the tools out fast (the network effect is pronounced with these tools so speed does matter).  Make Enterprise 2.0 as simple as humanely possible for your organization in this framework, but no simpler. "

So who is right? Well, who said there had to be a right answer? Perhaps the answer is all of the above.

Saturday 10 March 2007

Its new but not difficult, right?

...but while some find it as easy as plugging their wiki into the network, Michelle Laurie's progress isn't so magical:

"Basically, I have 50 people from over 30 countries that need to work together for the next four years and will be meeting together at the end of March.  In preparation, I made the WIKI with links to information about the meeting, a survey they need to complete and a contacts page which they can fill in for example.  So far, five of the fifty have contributed.  On a positive note, I trained a colleague from DRC (Congo) by phone and he seemed to get it.  I think there may be a need for one on one training with people in order to ensure they are grasping the concepts.  Its new but not difficult.  At present I feel there is potential but not fuly convinced it will work."

Sounds like to me that the wiki isn't the problem here, but same old virtual teaming problems we already know about.

Another Wiki Case Study from Dan Bricklin: Thomson Learning

Dan Bricklin has recorded another wiki case study (MP3 podcast), this time with Thomson Learning. A separate write up of their experiences is also available, but its worth listening to Bricklin's interview for more background. In summary, the approach at Thomas Learning was to plug a laptop running Linux and Twiki into the network and let it grow from there (ok, slight simplification).

I say Knowledge Management, you say Enterprise 2.0 - but that's wrong

Is it me or just the feeds I'm reading, but the word "knowledge management" (KM) is appearing more frequently (and not just as a tag), particularly in the context of Enterprise 2.0 (E2.0). In fact I just noticed that a Technorati WTF on KM has appeared this week.

The E2.0 debate about adoption looks like the catalyst, but also I suspect the talk about IBM Lotus' new software announcements (and to a lesser extent MS) in this space has also fueled interest.

Its great to see people talking about the links between experiences with KM adoption with E2.0. In fact, the speed at which we are traveling along the hype curve to get to this point is quite amazing. But, before we get too carried away and find ourselves in the same position of confusing knowledge management and information management I suggest we all read Wilson's case against KM again, and also my own take on this issue.

Just as social software does not equal wisdom, E2.0 does not equal knowledge management. E2.0 simply provides KM with some new tools that can help with the KM problem of participation, including but not limited to social media (and that's great!). In fact, while James Robertson suggests we abandon the term "Knowledge Management System" from a planning perspective, I actually like the fact that the term is vague - a KMS should be any kind of information system you use to achieve a KM objective (I should add that I agree with James' central theme about buying branded KM systems). On the other hand, E2.0 represents a cross over between a KMS and just a part of a wider Web 2.0 trend that is also moving inside the firewall at the same time. Inside the firewall, Web 2.0 will provide:

  • New ways to support collaboration both inside and between organisations (also a benefit for KM, but not limited to KM);
  • A new approach for developing and deploying enterprise applications, and access to enterprise data (hmm, starting to get away from KM here) - for example, see Why "Super Users" are the new programmers; and
  • Better techniques for providing rich user environments that make software easier to use.
  • ...and there are probably more.

More importantly, KM is alive and well and for next generation KM the addiction to information technology is under control:

  • Concepts like Communities of Practice (CoPs) and Storytelling can all work without information technology; and
  • Social Network Analysis (SNA) uses computing power as a means to an end.

E2.0 ("enterprise social software") is different from KM because:

  • It is all about information technology - it does not and can not exist without it; and
  • It appears to have the power to change the shape of organisations, while KM typically tried to improve what was there or provide a way to tap into the back channel.

So, if you you are trying adopt E2.0 the question is are you trying to change the organisation for E2.0 or do you want E2.0 to change your organisation? I'll leave the final word to Euan.

Monday 5 March 2007

Second year running! Enabling Knowledge Management with Technology Masterclass in Singapore

I'm just a couple of weeks away from heading back to Singapore for the third time to run my Enabling Knowledge Management with Technology Masterclass, with Ark Group Asia.

Like any of the seminars or workshops I run, I like to make things as interactive as possible and one of my favourites parts of the masterclass where I "debunk" the data > information > knowledge concept. It builds on some of the ideas I wrote about in an IDM article called, Knowledge Management: How to separate the wheat from the chaff (PDF, 108KB).

So with the increased interest in Enterprise 2.0 (something I already cover in the masterclass), I welcome other perspectives on the link between KM and Enterprise 2.0 - here are some recent ideas:

  • Bill Ives - "Enterprise 2.0 is more complex than knowledge management but it raises many of the same issues, only more so, and we can learn from its mistakes."
  • Martin Cleaver - "Knowledge Management as a discipline provides frameworks for understanding some of the dynamics of the big picture: from a strategy standpoint building the types of capital, from the individual, group and organizational levels. Much of KM theory was developed way before this Web 2.0 stuff came along yet many products and practitioners are unaware of just how many KM aspects have been reinvented in Web 2.0."

I agree - Enterprise 2.0 can be informed by our experiences with KM, but Next Generation Knowledge Management (NGKM) does not equate to Enterprise 2.0. Why? Because fundamentally you don't need technology for KM... but in some circumstance technology can help or even be a critical success factor. For example, large distributed organisations.

But, I'd love to know what you think - does Knowledge Management = Enterprise 2.0?

PS For those of you in Australia, I've been discussing with another conference company about running a shorter version of my masterclass locally - so stay tuned and keep your fingers crossed for details later in the year.

Inconceivable that Sharepoint-based social software won't keep improving

More on Enterprise 2.0 capabilities in MS Sharepoint (aka "MOSS 2007" - I hate that name...), Mike Gotta comments on Lawrence Liu's Report from the Inside - Lui tells us:

"As I stated quick emphatically during my "SharePoint Collaboration and Community Tools" session at the European SharePoint Conference last Tuesday, the wiki functionality in WSS 3.0 was not designed to compete directly with best-of-breed wiki products like SocialText, but rather, it's the integration of a plethora of collaboration and community features that make WSS 3.0 and MOSS 2007 best of breed as a whole...

...I believe that the built-in wiki functionality is sufficient for a very large percentage of our customer base, and many customers have indeed standardized on the SharePoint wiki as part of their overall standardization on SharePoint as the enterprise collaborative application platform. More and more SharePoint customers who want advanced wiki functionality are looking to the specialized wiki ISVs like SocialText to provide it with an integrated user experience in SharePoint by way of 3rd party webparts."

Gotta responds:

"An interesting perspective on how Microsoft views best-of-breed wiki technology versus what is currently available in MOSS 2007 / WSS 3.0. My gut feel though is that this is a "window dressing" (no pun intended) statement. It is inconceivable to me that the next major release of SharePoint Products & Technologies would not dramatically improve its core wiki engine and application capabilities (ditto for blogging and tagging/bookmarking)."

PS If you click through, don't get too excited about Liu's presentation - most of it was a live demo apparently...

Sunday 4 March 2007

Where do you stand on Enterprise 2.0?

I think its significant, in the context of the trends myself and others are tracking in the Enterprise 2.0 space, that there are number overlapping articles from ComputerWorldInformation Week and CIO magazine at the moment:

  • How IT Makes Johnny More Productive: Tech-enabled multitasking leads to productivity gains at the desktop, a new study shows - "one of biggest predictors of productivity is social networks — the people you communicate with over e-mail. Social network analyses have indicators of where you are in the network — whether you're central or peripheral. If you measure the shortest communication path between each pair of individuals, the number of times anyone else appears in that path gives you 'betweenness.' That means they’re in the thick of information flows, and it’s a good predictor of their productivity." [care of Jack Vinson] UPDATE: The paper behind this article is available for download.
  • Most Business Tech Pros Wary About Web 2.0 Tools In Business - "For all the mind-numbing buzz about Web. 2.0, most business collaboration and information sharing remains mired in endless e-mail strings and scheduled conference calls. More than half of business technology pros surveyed by InformationWeek are either skeptical about tools such as blogs, wikis, and online social networks, or they're willing but wary of adopting them."
  • Users Who Know Too Much (And the CIOs Who Fear Them) - "Users have a history of providing their own technology, but the capabilities of today’s consumer IT products and the ease with which users can find them is unprecedented... There’s a consumer technology out there for every task imaginable—and if there isn’t, there’s a tool that will let someone create it tomorrow. The era in which IT comes only from your IT department is over."

When will pull these articles together, there is a common thread and it won't surprise you - Elisa Graceffo, Microsoft's group product manager for collaboration and portals, sums it up well in the Information Week article:

"There's this tension between the IT department that wants to have this orderly, planned infrastructure, and you've got end users out there experimenting with all these different collaboration tools."

And the reason of course that users want these different collaboration tools is they help them to be more productive... isn't that what everyone want?

However, I still have some sympathy for "little guy" who comments on the CIO magazine article:

"Because I work for a medium sized non-profit, I’ve been able to escape a lot of the compliance issues my bigger siblings have faces, but it won’t be long now. Frankly, it scares me as I have few staff and fewer dollars. Now this article comes along to tell me - don’t worry about your corporate data, employee productivity, or the latest freeware screwing up the desktop - costing my staff time. It’s all part of the wonderful world of chaos IT! Let them do their chaos IT at home, where I don’t have to worry about fixing their screwups!"

But there is a counterpoint - which comes from a non-IT manager in another non-profit, Emily Turner, who approaches it as a Technology Stewardship issue, a concept I'm aware through Nancy White:

"There was no existing “IT Guy” to control how we used IT before I came along, nor do I think having one would have necessarily benefited us... Our organic way of collaborating and simple everyday working has fostered this more grassroots use of technology to develop ideas - people no longer feel like they have to shut their ideas down as unachievable, or feel they have to relinquish their control over them to strict technological requirements.

Social media tools are, of course, the best technology to use in cases like these. Perhaps my own self-training in figuring out these tools is the ideal background for integrating them into our everyday functioning."

I guess its all about perspective.

We Live in Exponential Times...

Some more thought provoking videos with information, knowledge and social media themes:

Did you know?

Re: Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us

This is response to the original The Machine is Us/ing Us.

Via my personal YouTube pimp, Luis Suarez, here and here.

Friday 2 March 2007

MS Knowledge Network first release candidate now available

Just so you don't get the wrong impression that I'm completely obsessed with IBM Lotus, I thought you might like to know that Microsoft Knowledge Network for Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 first release candidate is now available for download.

I'm watching both the Microsoft and IBM approaches to Enterprise 2.0 with great interest, particularly how they stack up against the bottom-up evolved wikis and other social software tools that have been sneaked in behind the firewall in growing numbers.

Care of Michael Sampson.

Thursday 1 March 2007

Offline Web Apps - Please, Keep It Simple Stupid!

I noticed that my offline Web apps post got'd by Dion Hinchcliffe - he comments:

"Yep, offline capability is a key checklist for the next generation of Web apps, particularly for things like Web mail (when you're on the plane and have to get work done.)"

Hmm. Doesn't that assumes that inflight Web access will never be available or too expensive?

Anyway, when I'm on the road and I won't have Wifi access to the Internet I just download my personal email to my PDA, and my work email is already to sync'd on my laptop. Its already pretty easy.

Now this is not to say that I'm not convinced that offline won't be a key capability on the checklist as Hinchcliffe suggests, but I just see us cycling back into resource hungry, difficult to install and maintain, fat-clients that we went online to avoid in the first place... I just hope in all of this we remember to KISS.

PS Andrew - if you want to take your wiki with you right now, can't you just copy it with something like HTTrack?

Biffo between IT, users and the extended enterprise

Two sides of the current tension between enterprise IT and user-driven IT are represented in this post by Jeff Nolan and response from Mike Gotta.

Nolan says:

"here in the real world we are seeing examples of business units taking more control of their IT environments and telling corporate IT to go away"

Gotta responds:

"When there is a lack of trust, cooperation, shared ownership, sense of community and governance spanning business and IT, bad things happen. Enterprise 2.0 does not change that situation. Indeed, it could easily exacerbate it. Giving business units rights to do whatever they want is a governance issue... it all comes back to business/IT alignment and the continual engagement involving all parties that is necessary so we avoid the 'us' vs. 'them' mentality that really doesn't solve anything in the long run."

Meanwhile, over at Read/WriteWeb they introduce a third party - the Extended Enterprise:

"What is the Extended Enterprise (EE)?... The modern enterprise is no longer one, monolithic organization. Customers, Partners, Suppliers, Outsourcers, Distributors, Resellers, … all kinds of entities extend and expand the boundaries of the enterprise, and make 'collaboration' and 'sharing' important... Few of these Extended Enterprise stakeholders are inside the firewall. They don’t necessarily have accounts in the Enterprise IT network, posing challenges and creating friction in the workflow."

It's going to be a messy divorce ;-)

UPDATE: Who needs a CIO? Jeff Moriarty on the IT@Intel blog points out this post on the Long Tail blog and adds his thoughts on the debate:

"CIOs shifting from being innovators to being focused on Keeping The Business Running (KTBR). As a result, they have become more risk averse and are heading for a showdown with the newer generation of employees who have an expectation of just wanting a wide open pipe of connectivity and want IT to get out of their way."