Author of machiavelli.net, proud father of three, interested in shaping network society. Welcome to my blog.Do we need Folksonomies in Mature Organizations?
Folksonomies work when a critical number of participants are willing to invest time into improving the framework of their work environment, without any direct payoff. Folksonomies can be generated as the an unintended consequence of individual action or as the intended acts of socially minded participants.
Ronald Coase would have tried to take a shot at the question on the level of abstraction it was posed on: Markets tag products and services with prices as an unintended byproduct of supply meeting demand (folksonomy), while firms classify inputs strategically (taxonomy). So, he would argue no folksonomies inside the firm. However, with the introduction of cost centers, internal markets, flattened hierarchies, and the networked enterprise, the question becomes more complicated. It is has two aspects, namely:
a. How do we work? – do we play our role in a given hierarchy or do we work as problem-solvers.
b. Why do we work? – do we work because of incentives or do we identify with the problem-solving.
Depending on the combination of “how” and “why” the work environment will be conducive for folksonomies. So we have the following combinations:
(1) We play a role and are incentivized to work, example: any McJob [folksonomies will not play a big rolel].
(2) We play a role and identify with the problem-solving, example: medical personnel, police, etc. [folksonomies could work].
(3) We are problem-solvers and work for incentives, example: finance, techdirt-community [folksonomies might work if a mid-term monetary incentive is given].
(4) We are problem-solvers and identify with problem-solving, example: open source developers, some creative jobs [folksonomies will fly].
So the question cannot be answered on the level of abstraction it was posed, however, it can help us to distinguish between the contexts in which it makes sense to introduce folksonomies as a tool.
