Will Enterprise 2.0 help us get to Evidence 2.0?

Lately there's lots of talk about Enterprise 2.0 and Office 2.0. It's about bringing Web 2.0 to the workplace with social networks and easy-to-use online tools. Depending who you ask, this might just be crummy, old wine repackaged in hip, new bottles. Or it might just be the Best. Thing. Ever.

As companies adopt XYZ 2.0, they need to ask how this can help them achieve better evidence-based management. It certainly could, because the tools they use to gather up evidence affect how quickly managers can use it to adapt and thrive. Here are three ways to approach what I affectionately call Evidence 2.0:

1. Free-form. Letting people contribute evidence in any form, using whatever tools they want (examples include unstructured doc-sharing and employee blogs -- akin to Zoho Writer or WordPress). This is tempting because a) it's easy, and b) people are more enthusiastic about evidence-based processes if they get to participate in collecting the evidence (see Evidence, evidence everywhere). Pros: You can get evidence from anywhere, not just from some "inner circle." Informal processes make room for unexpected insights and innovations. Cons: It's hard to define success. Inconsistent formats make it hard to use the same evidence in multiple ways, or see how specific contributions relate to corporate priorities.

2. Command-control. Designing structures that accept only certain types of information. (For example, allowing content only from approved sources, or requiring project descriptions to always include a specific type of financial analysis.) Pros: More consistency, reliability, and ability to reuse. Cons: Be careful what you ask for. You'll probably get good information, but an inflexible process won't capture all the evidence about what's happening. And by limiting the focus, you'll risk having some information distorted to fit your scheme.

3. Participation. Here you're aiming for the best of both, balancing free-form and command-control. This recognizes people's desire to "be heard" -- and the need to do it quickly -- while limiting how they do that. A loose structure can set ground rules at key steps and also let people customize processes (using forms, or by tagging content a certain way). Example: A workflow system that guides protocols or decisions, but allows people to  either reinforce or override some steps if they contribute supporting evidence. Pros: You'll get specific evidence in usable forms, while encouraging grass-roots observations. You can design it so contributions are linked with corporate objectives. Cons: This takes more effort than free-form tools. You might discourage people who just want to jot something down (but this item could also be listed under Pros). And whichever approach you choose, success will depend on usability, and on championing by key participants.

What do you think? Will Enterprise 2.0 help companies achieve better evidence-based management (a/k/a Evidence 2.0)? Or will it devolve into more failed technology efforts? (For me, "knowledge management" comes to mind.)