Web 2.0, redes y comunidades de práctica

12 Mar 2008 | 1:36 pm | Autor: Roc Fages

Filed under: e-Government andInnovación

Hace un tiempo os comenté que se había publicado el artículo sobre Web 2.0, redes y comunidades de práctica para el ePractice Journal que Ramon Sangüesa y yo mismo elaboramos a partir del trabajo de consultoría que les hicimos. El tema estaba comentado dentro de un post, escondido. Ahora lo he recuperado, y os podéis descargar el documento desde aquí

En el texto hablamos de cómo la Web 2.0 se aplica en las redes y comunidades de prácticas, las tendencias que hay y llegamos a unas conclusiones de recomendación para organismos públicos que quieran desarrollar el concepto 2.0 para generar comunidades entre sus trabajadores o la ciudadanía. Es por ello que, para los que no quieran leer el documento entero  (18 páginas) integro aquí esas conclusiones:

"The interaction of 2.0 technologies, good practice exchange and eGovernment gives a wide range of opportunities and, consequently, individual people and organizations have to have a clear picture of their own goals and focus to choose and adapt to the possibilities that fit best to their situation and goals.

2.0 technologies are basically collaboration technologies. In that sense, they are natural allies for good practice exchange communities. However, they induce dynamics and create expectations that have to be well understood and managed. They are potentially disruptive. 2.0 technologies are basically levers for bottom-up, emergent dynamics and transient organizations. They bring with them the inherent possibility of more disruption of present control structures (decision making, conflict resolution, goal setting, etc.).

2.0 technologies and their associated group practices cannot be adopted in a haphazard, improvised way. Plan ahead. Decide if there is a real need to disrupt the current dynamics. Ask simple questions:

1. Is there room for improvement in knowledge quality?  
2. Is there a need to increase participation and contributions from community members?  
3. Is there evidence of the existence of knowledgeable people that have not been “discovered”
even it they have been contributing good practices? 
4. Would the community benefit of easier interconnection with people? 
5. Are there problems with personal profiling? 

If most of the answers to this type of questions hint to a change, it is time to plan for the simultaneous deployment of 2.0 solutions and the introduction of new rules, norms and conventions within the organization. 

“Planning” in this context, however, is a very misleading word. One has not to “design” or even “design with evolution in mind”. One has to “design an evolution”, i.e., create the landscape to let evolve a system –of people and technology- towards increased collective learning levels. The creation of healthy social dynamics is crucial if one adopts 2.0. Otherwise, it generates frustration and resentment, since a new technology has to be learned and mastered and little change is brought about. It is important to isolate the atomic behaviors that with the help of 2.0 technologies will yield improved good practice exchange. As in any networked collaborative endeavor this boils down to defining a set of practices that ensure the right balance between personal effort and communal success. It is important to think of a coherent, well-thought and widely agreed set of specific behaviors for specific situations in the different contexts that configure a community: decision making, conflict resolution, goal setting and, most important, rewards and penalties.   


Going 2.0 means opening up to individual contributions coming from people in the internal organization and in the external environment. The environment of administrations are citizens. More than seeing them as “clients”, as the recipients of government activity or, alternatively, as constant and stark critics of governmental actions, they can be seen, in true 2.0 fashion, as possible collaborators. And not only collaborating in the results of government actions but in the actual processes of designing strategies, regulations and actions that eventually will impact most directly on their daily lives. This goes beyond Citizen Relationship Management and raises expectations and cautions on the citizens’ side. Some “participative” schemas can be seen as the most negative variant of “crowdsourcing” from the part of the administration. Starting not with the whole, undifferentiated mass of citizens but with exchange communities that are already interacting with government may be a good initial move towards a more collaborative view of administration and government"


No comments have been added to this post yet.

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI