Maddie: I’m afraid saying things like “many associations will continue to refuse…and by the time their members are all gone it will be too late” doesn’t help your cause. I know exactly where you’re coming from, and I mean no offense, but it comes off as either powerfully naive or shrill.

History is also not on your side. Lots of national associations didn’t have websites in 1996 when the drum was being beaten by the early adopters (and lots and lots of consultants). Do you remember which ones? Did they go out of business? Saying “you must do this or technology will pass you by” is simply not going to work with a lot of organizations. As more and more organizations do it, the value will become more and more clear. But until it’s become prevalent, it’s up to internal champions (or, in some professions or industries, member champions) to figure out how to sell the value. (The great thing is, if it really is valuable for your organization, and you’re the one who sells it, you become the forward-thinking rock star, which is not a bad place to be.)

What’s the upside? What are the benefits? Then there can be a substantive discussion.

Fear has nothing to do with web 2.0, any more than “reality TV’ shows have anything to do with reality. There’s little or nothing in association management to create fear. I’m trying to hold off writing a piece about what fear really is, and about learning to live and function with it.

Your point, trying to get some logic and rational thinking into the discussion about Web 2.0 is important. Why would anyone in a responsible position for an organization take risks when there are no visible tangible benefits? What are the organizational benefits from Web 2.0? Who has identified the beneficial results for associations that may be obtained from Web 2.0?

Web 2.0 advocates would do much better (and be more credible) by articulating the positive benefits and results from implementing Web 2.0 tools, than advancing arguments such as ‘you can’t hold technology back” or that association execs aren’t rushing to Web 2.0 because they are “fearful”. Get a grip.

I wrote a response a couple of months ago suggesting that much more positive change might be achieved by less finger pointing and judgemental comments, and by more rational due diligence. See http://www.getmejamienotter.com/getmejamienotter/2008/02/the-myth-of-c on.html#comments

Repeating myself: “If change (to implement Web 2.0) is really the desired outcome, how effective do we think this sort of (judgemenatal) language will be? Wouldn’t expanding the knowledge/experience base, dealing with risk and doing the necessary due diligence be more effective (and ultimately more fun)? We might even actually accomplish something tangible.”

I continue to think that change and new ideas–whether Web 2.0 or anything else–not only takes vision and daring, but it also takes old-fashioned stoop labor to identify the benefits, identify and manage the risks, and work diligently forward.

Change doesn’t happen by someone simply advocating it from the sidelines. Change doesn’t happen because it may be “cool” to someone. Do some reading on the research of successful change management. Change, including web 2.0, requires a lot of mature work, including team work.

Just a thought. Off my box. Appreciate your comments.