Planteamiento del papel de los agentes de económicos públicos y privados para el DEL en

Although the interview revealed that web 2.0 could be very useful, especially in improving stakeholder and supplier communication and improving information gathering and sharing, the interviewees also identified many risks and disadvantages that create barriers for the implementation of web 2.0 tools. VoIP is used very rarely with outsiders, other tools not at all.

The biggest disadvantages that every interviewee mentioned was security and privacy issues, and that web 2.0 could be prone to hacking. This was also considered as a major barrier for the implementation of web 2.0. The interviewees said that if the systems are based on sharing of information, it could be somewhat easy to make mistakes and spread wrong and sensitive information. Interviewee C said: “If the basis is that people collaborate more, does it mean more humane errors?”.

The interviewees were also concerned about confidentiality, and this raised many questions. Although web 2.0 is based on sharing information, where is the limit? Do people understand what can and cannot be shared and published on different platforms? And how can system users be sure that the system provider does not leak information forward? Interviewee B said that “companies fear of leaking sensitive information to others”. Interviewee A mentioned that every relationship is confidential; it is not easy to start changing experiences with others without causing some kind of problems, as business relationships are mostly based on mutual trust. These were the most severe disadvantages and threats that the interviewees identified. “People tend to speak more freely over the phone than in e-mails or other platforms”, this was said by D when asked about the disadvantages of web 2.0 and was later complemented by; “People tend not to participate in conversations, if they see more threats than benefits”.

Other issues were related to data and its amount and quality. Interviewee C was worried that as there are already vast amount of data coming from various sources, would the total amount of data be overwhelming after the implementation of more web 2.0 tools? E, who is already highly involved with supplier analytics, was concerned about the quality of data. For mashups to be reliable, the data sources must be trustworthy. Public sources may be problematic if the data cannot be verified, and in some sources information may be made up without any connections to reality.

Interestingly, the interviewees did not come up with any other direct disadvantages that could be related to web 2.0. The Interviewees had more views about barriers why the company or other companies don’t use web 2.0 tools in their purchasing (disadvantages can also be considered as barriers). The barriers where related to users, stakeholders and the company’s processes and culture.

Interviewees A, B, D and E all said that the company has many internal barriers that impede the company from adopting more collaborative tools. They all state that the organisation culture is rather bureaucratic. This makes adopting new tools a slow and long process. Another internal barrier is change resistance. Although the culture might be bureaucratic, the company has made many changes in the recent past. But some feel that the changes were not managed well. Managers who make the decisions, don’t have a clear vision on how changes will affect different functions. Some feel that employees were not informed properly about the changes, which has caused confusion and frustration. Employees find it hard to keep up with the changes, which has made them sceptical towards new changes and software, and their argued benefits. Person C said that there

are already a lot of systems in use, so would new web 2.0 tools be too much? People would need time to adapt and learn how to use new systems, and time is something that is a rare resource in many modern companies that drive for more efficiency. B also said that “If people don’t know about these tools, they also don’t understand their potential”. This comment was probably targeted towards people higher in the company’s hierarchy, who make the decisions about what systems are in use. This was an interesting finding, as the company has already implemented some web 2.0 tools. But this also confirms that on a general level, people don’t have that much knowledge about what web 2.0 is, and what can be done with it. This finding was already mentioned in part 6.2.

Other barriers are related to use with external parties. One prerequisite that C said was that “All suppliers and other stakeholders would have to have similar systems, otherwise they would be useless”. This was enforced by the words of A: “We are not the biggest company in our industry, so do our suppliers think we are attractive enough to implement these systems with us?”. The problem is that if you’re the only one using such tools, there is little value in the system. And company’s suppliers also has to realize the value of new tools. If the buyer is not an interesting and promising customer, the suppliers see little point in investing such tools. A and D also saw the way of doing business as a barrier for implementation. It was said that purchasing is very much project oriented, and suppliers may change between projects. This decreases suppliers’ interest in investing in such systems, as the buyer cannot guarantee that the business relationship would continue after a certain project. So there is a risk that the investment would go to waste. Most of the suppliers are small companies, so it would require relatively large investments for them to implement new systems.