> The issue with the methodology is that it lacks a key component – that is, an effective organizational change stream to support the implementation.

Yes agree is Organizational Culture is key e.g. organizations that see/use a more fluid collaborative, P2P, non-hierarchical network as a complement ( not replacement ) to hierarchy will be more successful with happier and more productive people than ossified hierarchical organizations that see it as threatening to status quo

Take a look at this post.

A framework for social learning in the enterprise
by Jon Husband ( a friend/colleague of mine)
http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2010/02/26/a-framework-for-social-learning-in-the-enterprise/

some key snippets

Social learning is how groups work and share knowledge to become better practitioners. Organizations should focus on enabling practitioners to produce results by supporting learning through social networks. The rest is just window dressing.

“Wirearchy” is “a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority, based on knowledge, trust, credibility and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology”. We are seeing increasing examples of this on the edges of the modern enterprise. 

>I worked closely with one of the originators of the MIKE 2.0 methodology, he is based in Australia and is originally Bearing Point, now the Global IM Practice lead for Deloitte in Melbourne (Australia).

Yes we know him

Finally there will be a follow on post next week by Mike that addresses a Semantic Enterprise Assessment and Solutions overlay to MIKE2.0 that enables users to discover, connect, communicate, and share knowledge in new and innovative ways.

Ping me at sardire@gmailcom if you’d like to discuss more.

- Steve

I completely agree with your comments regarding open sourcing and appreciate your comments regarding the success or failure of online communities. I certainly did not mean to single out Bearing Point as doing anything wrong in this case and have worked with them as a client in the past and found their delivery and value proposition acceptable, as I have with Deloitte (although it would be good if their people could be slightly more relaxed on-site .

I worked closely with one of the originators of the MIKE 2.0 methodology, he is based in Australia and is originally Bearing Point, now the Global IM Practice lead for Deloitte in Melbourne (Australia). I believe this is their only global practice based in Australia. I was working with them at the time they open-sourced it and at the time is seemed to be almost too good to be true – a global entity open sourcing and then actively contributing to an EIM method that could be freely used without consent or attribution, with the only expectation being community contribution in the longer term.

However, what has happened in the past few years indicates limited growth in the growth of MIKE 2.0 supporting assets and very few contributions in terms of case studies – particularly those concerned with actual delivery. I still find MIKE 2.0 useful in terms of the structures and guidance it provides (although less useful than the DAMA 2.0 DMBOK from a data management perspective).

My point is – does the moderation (through the governance structure – controlling the core elements of MIKE 2.0) by commercial entities hinder or stifle the development of the community? I think it does. As a reasonably caring and sharing soul who is happy to contribute generally to the body of knowledge in the EIM domain and has done so on many occasions in different communities, I find I think twice about submitting to the MIKE 2.0 community. I am not alone in feeling this as indicated by the participation inequality of the online community. Usually the 90-9-1 statistics (90% lurkers, 9% contribute 10% and 1% contribute 90%) indicate a sustainable community, but there are a total of 35 posts in the forum at the moment (not counting those post concerning the wiki software) for more than 1000 registered users. My feeling is that others feel the same way (although that may be arrogance).

I am also part of a small EIM startup, focused on the human factors in information management. I have always transferred the relevant IP to the client with the knowledge that I could create more. It is almost a chicken and egg situation – if there was more activity, some of my fears would be alleviated and I would post more…happy to take you up on your offer of posting and replies on the forums. It might wake them up.

Thank you for your comments, and the energy behind them. From a naive standpoint, I take your interest in providing this degree of commentary as excellent news.

Without a doubt, I am a newbie on the MIKE2.0 site and in relation to the governance structure. However, I was completely honest in my appraisal of the key leadership folks and their welcoming of me and our contributions.

Before “open source” we had “co-opetition”. Whether BearingPoint is misusing contributions I can’t comment. What I have come to learn, and indeed even had issues with my last venture over the very issue, is the role of things like open source are changing our world, and I think for the better.

Any project, going back to user groups or Compuserve or the old BBSs, succeeded or failed by the community that grew behind them. One never knows whether that threshold or that given forum will succeed in a given case. Will the threshold be met for MIKE2.0?

As for us, we liked the equation. There is much of start-up methodology benefit to a small firm such as us. We will continue to contribute to reciprocate. We’d like to be part of what helps the MIKE2.0 site cross the threshold.

I have been putting forth valuable (I think) ideas on my blog for some time. I know some listen, and I know some shamelessly steal. (I do the same where I can!)

But, in the end, we get hired and paid because we execute and we have ideas and knowledge about our space. I get more from my open contribution on my blog than I would to keep those ideas in a file drawer or only shared with the select prospect. I think the same mindset applies to MIKE2.0.

Maybe BearingPoint is/will rip us off on those ideas, but on the other hand they can also help us build a market.

So, I believe more competitors is good. I believe our world has changed to open source/methodologies and the need to provide fundamental value. I believe (so far) that what I have seen from MIKE2.0 is a good deal for us.

Post some stuff on the MIKE2.0 forum, and I’ll be happy to respond!

Best, Mike