Andy: I agree that it's 'not not' about technology. And as I always like to point out, we'd all be a lot better off if we understood and embraced the non-digital aspects of technology, especially as noted by Clayton Christensen "the processes by which an organization transforms labor, capital, materials, and information into products and services of greater value". But we don't.
Due to the imperfections in language as a representation, we have to deal with common interpretations. The message "it's not about the technology" does not infer that the technology is not necessary -- it suggests that it's not sufficient. In a reality where so many see and buy technologies as 'finished products', this mindset has to be overcome with a strong perspective. The common belief has to be challenged to start the conversation in earnest.
Yes, the digital technologies hold great potential. But they are 'lost' without the balance of all the components that make a sound technology, by Christensen's definition. Because so few hold this understanding, anyone who is championing core principles must also champion the details of the broader definition of technology, else the story is only partially true. You speak of technology and then you specifically mention software. While software is a technology, not all technology is software. Even if we were to embrace, as you suggest, the technological aspects of Enterprise 2.0, software itself is a small part of it.
"A definition is not a discussion". I would guess you're suggesting that a definition is a placeholder, around which discussion can ensue (I believe the 'contrarians' are suggesting they're not seeing a venue for such discussion). The essence of all things 2.0 is the recognition that 'facts' are contextual. The purpose of the flexibility that is borne of 2.0 is to accommodate growth and ever-changing conditions that are the reality of business.
Ever-changing has always been part of the business landscape, the difference now is the rate of change -- which is forcing us to move away from the side of the Design Thinking continuum where lives "binary code" and "algorithms", more toward "heuristics" and "mystery". While there will be conditions for which all will be relevant, the focus has to be more in the tradeoffs between the heuristic and the algorithm. We are constantly learning and seeing things from different perspectives. A definition that is 'locked down' would be an embracing of 'binary code'. That's just not part of a 2.0 reality which embraces the need to facilitate the dynamic middle -- providing the ability to harness the crest of the wave, capitalizing on kinetic energy (energy in motion) and order for free...the birthplace of emergence.
We offer gratitude and respect for your trailblazing this category. As well I offer as evidence other trailblazers: John Zachman originally only had 3 categories in his now 6 category Enterprise Architecture Framework (the other three came from the 'masses'); Bill Inmon did not embrace data marts as part of data warehousing. Both evolved.
I look forward to the continued growth in our collective understanding of this topic as we seek to leverage its potential and improve the means by which we work together.
Tom Graves
· 4 months ago
I will admit I'm a bit disappointed by the above - you've clearly not bothered to consider any of the points made by myself or Oscar Berg.
A 'term-hijack' ( see "The dangers of 'term-hijack'", http://weblog.tomgraves.org/index.php/2009/08/1... ) occurs when an existing term is re-used in such a way that a subset of the context is presented as if it's the whole of the context, and thence prevents any other view of or perspective into the whole. For 'Enterprise 2.0', Paula Thornton explains the concerns well in her comment: yes, the IT components are relevant, but they are by no means sufficient in themselves. As will be clear from exploration of any of the many intersecting domains such as security-architecture, service-oriented architecture or narrative-knowledge, many of the 'social software' elements are technology-agnostic relative to the means of implementation, and in many contexts may function in the mode implied by the 'Enterprise 2.0' definition without any IT at all. In those contexts, the 'social software' resides in the people, not the technology.
Despite your assertions above, the fact remains that 'people' still exists nowhere in the term 'social software'; you vaguely imply people must be involved somewhere because it's 'social', but that's about it. And since 'social' is the adjective, the emphasis is clearly on the 'software' component, not the 'social'. So you haven't actually addressed any of the critique at all: instead, you've merely dismissed our concerns with put-down terms such as 'strange statements' or 'flawed arguments'. You've not identified any of the 'flaws' you purport to see in our concerns, nor have you changed anything of substance at all in your definition. So we're left to suspect that the arguments seem strange to you primarily because you've failed to explore any of the broader social picture; and that our arguments seem 'flawed' to you for exactly the same reason.
Our real complaint, I suppose, is that, like so many IT-centric buzzwords before it, the definition of 'Enterprise 2.0' is essentially circular, self-referential and self-serving, and fails to connect with a real world in which people must always take preference over a single short-term software fad. And that issue you have still not addressed at all.
If you are to re-use terms such as 'enterprise' and '2.0', it's essential to be aware of the consequences of doing so, especially if that re-use would constrain the scope. Consider, for example, the FEAF definition of 'enterprise', building upon IEEE-1471: "an organisation or cross-functional entity supporting a defined business scope and mission ... includes interdependent resources - people, organisations and technology - who must coordinate their functions and share resources in support of a common mission or set of related missions". By comparison with that definition, the usage of 'enterprise' in the 'Enterprise 2.0' definition is so constrained as to be absurd - and also blocks the view of the broader context. Much the same applies to the re-use of Tim O'Reilly's original 'Web 2.0' definition: the usage in the 'Enterprise 2.0' definition again actively shuts out the human dimension, instead focussing solely on the IT software.
The long-term result of the IT-centric 'Enterprise 2.0' definition has been that the real possibilities of a 'Web 2.0'-style rethink of the way enterprises work has been drowned out in a flood of marketing hype for every IT-application with the remotest possibility of being used in a supposedly 'social' manner. Most of the social, psychological, ethnographic and other complexities have been ignored in yet another classic 'deus ex machina' delusion, repeating exactly the same mistakes that caused the failures of BPR, ERP, CRM and so many other IT-driven fads. A true 'enterprise 2.0' is becoming essential for enterprise survival: yet this specific 'Enterprise 2.0' definition actively _prevents_ us from getting there, and you seem - as above - to be resolutely committed to refusing that fact. That to me is the real tragedy here.
That you may claim to be the originator of the 'Enterprise 2.0' term does not absolve you from these responsibilities - exactly the opposite, in fact. It would help us all if you started to face those responsibilities, rather than arbitrarily dismissing them as above.
Disappointed indeed - and with very good reason. You can do much better than this: please do?
Jeannot Muller
· 4 months ago
I'm fine with the definition in principle. It might be today's issue of printing books, which - unless it is an ebook - makes evolution only accessible to a larger audience after some delays (Version 2.0 of the book ;-) ). A definition itself is always a starting point, which can and should be reviewed later.
The concept of "2.0" embeds at my perception the risk of a consecutive future numbering, similar to Web 2.0. My business(!) experience is that people with IT background link such kind of numbering to their experiences with software development in the last 2 decades and therefore don't trust anything below version 3.x. A lot of the big brands in the Software Industry showed that their products became firstly mature above release 2.0. The Microsoft Windows Operating Systems is one example, it's true for SAP products, MS Internet Explorer etc. I know that it's only partially true for Firefox and newer open source developments for instance, but again I talk about discussions I have with business(!) partners, CxOs for instance, who have a profound aversion against any half-baked solution and everything below the magic 3 is half-baked for our generation. What to answer if they ask what Enterprise 3.0 will be all about. But what's in a name? By the end of the day this is a matter of taste, but I only wanted to drop you my thoughts why I prefer a proper name without any numbering.
However, I'm personally missing in the definition the description if Enterprise 2.0 is intrinsic, extrinsic or both (in both aspects from the toolsets needed and secondly – most importantly - from its coverage and area of influence). Is twitter.com E2.0, or is yammer.com E2.0 or do we need both? At my perception there is no right or wrong to this.
A marketing department needs most probably mainly tools like twitter.com, facebook.com etc. for their public reach outs, but project management might benefit from the quick messages in a safe and secure environment of yammer.com and similar, and program/product management might benefit from the brainstorming tweets in such a secure encapsulated internal environment. On the other hand why should product managers not already benefit from direct feedback from potential future customers? Will future employees (the e-generation) work with the limited tool-set we offer internally, or will they not be disappointed (not to say frustrated) if they can’t use the same tools for mind-mapping, polls, task handling, etc. as they use at home or in private life? Why should they follow a discussion on a corporate intranet or on a sharepoint, if they are used to facebook.com or linkedin.com groups? I'm aware that you're trying to reflect this in your first phrase: "Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers." by emphasizing on the "or", but what if we would say "and”? I agree with you that organizational changes should not be part of this definition, and giving the child a name is your legitimate right as the "father" of your definition, but in my case working for a company with over 450K employees and coverage of >200 countries your definition remains right even if I would add that the coverage is intrinsic only, and hence skipping the "or" and everything behind it. We face more and more the situation that the old boundaries of what an internal communication is all about and what could and should be communicated externally are getting to be fuzzy. Often people are not even conscious that in-between the lines they are "communicating" about internal discussions publicly (this comment is one proof).
I personally think that information flow can't be stopped (but has to be somehow controlled through a set of organizational rules) and consequently that it will make sense to extend the definition to a public scope. However especially in large companies with large audiences the benefits could already be realized by a limitation on a pure intrinsic scope, however how should it then reflect those aspects where an interaction with the public is becoming mandatory (e.g. sales department, public relations, etc.)
I'm focusing on this clarification as I do see exactly the boundary between the social media with public visibility and those with limitation within a company is crucial, key to success but difficult and it will be mandatory in future to manage these boundaries and borders of internal and external audiences and the respective information flow.
As we need to control to a reasonable extend the information flow in-/out-side the company a clear definition of what Enterprise 2.0 really is all about is somehow a must to get the same understanding by all parties involved. . I show today a tendency that it might be better to define the scope as such that this particular challenge is somehow included.
What are your thoughts on this or did I even miss the point?
Regards,
Jeannot Muller
Bertrand Duperrin
· 3 months ago
E2.0 means and aims at so many thing that your new definition seems to be closer to reality : it's about using socia media but also about taking into account many corporate and cultural stakes and issues.
Discussing something as protean as E2.0, I think me need more a direction than a strict definition (btw isn't it about making companies less similar ?). I tried myself to find a comprehensive definition two years ago and the result I blogged was a very long sentence that was not usable as such (IMHO). But there was on thing that coincides with you new one : it started with "it's a set of means that"... Maybe that's what matter and what we all agree on : technology alone is not enough, it's a sytem or a "set of means".
Hank Mobley
· 3 months ago
Not long ago i sat down, to write a conclusion of what defines E2.0 for a presentation at my university. I destilled your definition, the interpretations of Dion Hinchcliffe, plus the original Web 2.0 Meme Map from Tim O'Reilly and added an article of Patricio Robles (http://econsultancy.com/blog/3936-keeping-socia...). I finally could understand and interprete the meanings of E2.0 when I clustered the bits around the core which I borrowed from Robles in an O'Reilly style. Imho E2.0 is technology that gathers around a social core, because enterprises are social networks. In an enterprise network however there is more communication between groups happening than on social networks, where the communication is between individuals mostly (Fulkerson http://ostatic.com/blog/the-future-of-collabora...). The topics are different, the communication patterns are similar though. If s.o. is interested, my meme map is under an educational CC-Licence and can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluenote84149/3655...
ProfySpace
· 3 months ago
By @amcafee Enterprise 2.0 definition, it’s just technique but not tool(s). I think such way leads to big confusion for businesses
All Comments
Due to the imperfections in language as a representation, we have to deal with common interpretations. The message "it's not about the technology" does not infer that the technology is not necessary -- it suggests that it's not sufficient. In a reality where so many see and buy technologies as 'finished products', this mindset has to be overcome with a strong perspective. The common belief has to be challenged to start the conversation in earnest.
Yes, the digital technologies hold great potential. But they are 'lost' without the balance of all the components that make a sound technology, by Christensen's definition. Because so few hold this understanding, anyone who is championing core principles must also champion the details of the broader definition of technology, else the story is only partially true. You speak of technology and then you specifically mention software. While software is a technology, not all technology is software. Even if we were to embrace, as you suggest, the technological aspects of Enterprise 2.0, software itself is a small part of it.
"A definition is not a discussion". I would guess you're suggesting that a definition is a placeholder, around which discussion can ensue (I believe the 'contrarians' are suggesting they're not seeing a venue for such discussion). The essence of all things 2.0 is the recognition that 'facts' are contextual. The purpose of the flexibility that is borne of 2.0 is to accommodate growth and ever-changing conditions that are the reality of business.
Ever-changing has always been part of the business landscape, the difference now is the rate of change -- which is forcing us to move away from the side of the Design Thinking continuum where lives "binary code" and "algorithms", more toward "heuristics" and "mystery". While there will be conditions for which all will be relevant, the focus has to be more in the tradeoffs between the heuristic and the algorithm. We are constantly learning and seeing things from different perspectives. A definition that is 'locked down' would be an embracing of 'binary code'. That's just not part of a 2.0 reality which embraces the need to facilitate the dynamic middle -- providing the ability to harness the crest of the wave, capitalizing on kinetic energy (energy in motion) and order for free...the birthplace of emergence.
We offer gratitude and respect for your trailblazing this category. As well I offer as evidence other trailblazers: John Zachman originally only had 3 categories in his now 6 category Enterprise Architecture Framework (the other three came from the 'masses'); Bill Inmon did not embrace data marts as part of data warehousing. Both evolved.
I look forward to the continued growth in our collective understanding of this topic as we seek to leverage its potential and improve the means by which we work together.
A 'term-hijack' ( see "The dangers of 'term-hijack'", http://weblog.tomgraves.org/index.php/2009/08/1... ) occurs when an existing term is re-used in such a way that a subset of the context is presented as if it's the whole of the context, and thence prevents any other view of or perspective into the whole. For 'Enterprise 2.0', Paula Thornton explains the concerns well in her comment: yes, the IT components are relevant, but they are by no means sufficient in themselves. As will be clear from exploration of any of the many intersecting domains such as security-architecture, service-oriented architecture or narrative-knowledge, many of the 'social software' elements are technology-agnostic relative to the means of implementation, and in many contexts may function in the mode implied by the 'Enterprise 2.0' definition without any IT at all. In those contexts, the 'social software' resides in the people, not the technology.
Despite your assertions above, the fact remains that 'people' still exists nowhere in the term 'social software'; you vaguely imply people must be involved somewhere because it's 'social', but that's about it. And since 'social' is the adjective, the emphasis is clearly on the 'software' component, not the 'social'. So you haven't actually addressed any of the critique at all: instead, you've merely dismissed our concerns with put-down terms such as 'strange statements' or 'flawed arguments'. You've not identified any of the 'flaws' you purport to see in our concerns, nor have you changed anything of substance at all in your definition. So we're left to suspect that the arguments seem strange to you primarily because you've failed to explore any of the broader social picture; and that our arguments seem 'flawed' to you for exactly the same reason.
Our real complaint, I suppose, is that, like so many IT-centric buzzwords before it, the definition of 'Enterprise 2.0' is essentially circular, self-referential and self-serving, and fails to connect with a real world in which people must always take preference over a single short-term software fad. And that issue you have still not addressed at all.
If you are to re-use terms such as 'enterprise' and '2.0', it's essential to be aware of the consequences of doing so, especially if that re-use would constrain the scope. Consider, for example, the FEAF definition of 'enterprise', building upon IEEE-1471: "an organisation or cross-functional entity supporting a defined business scope and mission ... includes interdependent resources - people, organisations and technology - who must coordinate their functions and share resources in support of a common mission or set of related missions". By comparison with that definition, the usage of 'enterprise' in the 'Enterprise 2.0' definition is so constrained as to be absurd - and also blocks the view of the broader context. Much the same applies to the re-use of Tim O'Reilly's original 'Web 2.0' definition: the usage in the 'Enterprise 2.0' definition again actively shuts out the human dimension, instead focussing solely on the IT software.
The long-term result of the IT-centric 'Enterprise 2.0' definition has been that the real possibilities of a 'Web 2.0'-style rethink of the way enterprises work has been drowned out in a flood of marketing hype for every IT-application with the remotest possibility of being used in a supposedly 'social' manner. Most of the social, psychological, ethnographic and other complexities have been ignored in yet another classic 'deus ex machina' delusion, repeating exactly the same mistakes that caused the failures of BPR, ERP, CRM and so many other IT-driven fads. A true 'enterprise 2.0' is becoming essential for enterprise survival: yet this specific 'Enterprise 2.0' definition actively _prevents_ us from getting there, and you seem - as above - to be resolutely committed to refusing that fact. That to me is the real tragedy here.
That you may claim to be the originator of the 'Enterprise 2.0' term does not absolve you from these responsibilities - exactly the opposite, in fact. It would help us all if you started to face those responsibilities, rather than arbitrarily dismissing them as above.
Disappointed indeed - and with very good reason. You can do much better than this: please do?
The concept of "2.0" embeds at my perception the risk of a consecutive future numbering, similar to Web 2.0. My business(!) experience is that people with IT background link such kind of numbering to their experiences with software development in the last 2 decades and therefore don't trust anything below version 3.x.
A lot of the big brands in the Software Industry showed that their products became firstly mature above release 2.0. The Microsoft Windows Operating Systems is one example, it's true for SAP products, MS Internet Explorer etc. I know that it's only partially true for Firefox and newer open source developments for instance, but again I talk about discussions I have with business(!) partners, CxOs for instance, who have a profound aversion against any half-baked solution and everything below the magic 3 is half-baked for our generation. What to answer if they ask what Enterprise 3.0 will be all about.
But what's in a name? By the end of the day this is a matter of taste, but I only wanted to drop you my thoughts why I prefer a proper name without any numbering.
However, I'm personally missing in the definition the description if Enterprise 2.0 is intrinsic, extrinsic or both (in both aspects from the toolsets needed and secondly – most importantly - from its coverage and area of influence). Is twitter.com E2.0, or is yammer.com E2.0 or do we need both? At my perception there is no right or wrong to this.
A marketing department needs most probably mainly tools like twitter.com, facebook.com etc. for their public reach outs, but project management might benefit from the quick messages in a safe and secure environment of yammer.com and similar, and program/product management might benefit from the brainstorming tweets in such a secure encapsulated internal environment. On the other hand why should product managers not already benefit from direct feedback from potential future customers? Will future employees (the e-generation) work with the limited tool-set we offer internally, or will they not be disappointed (not to say frustrated) if they can’t use the same tools for mind-mapping, polls, task handling, etc. as they use at home or in private life? Why should they follow a discussion on a corporate intranet or on a sharepoint, if they are used to facebook.com or linkedin.com groups?
I'm aware that you're trying to reflect this in your first phrase: "Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers." by emphasizing on the "or", but what if we would say "and”?
I agree with you that organizational changes should not be part of this definition, and giving the child a name is your legitimate right as the "father" of your definition, but in my case working for a company with over 450K employees and coverage of >200 countries your definition remains right even if I would add that the coverage is intrinsic only, and hence skipping the "or" and everything behind it.
We face more and more the situation that the old boundaries of what an internal communication is all about and what could and should be communicated externally are getting to be fuzzy. Often people are not even conscious that in-between the lines they are "communicating" about internal discussions publicly (this comment is one proof).
I personally think that information flow can't be stopped (but has to be somehow controlled through a set of organizational rules) and consequently that it will make sense to extend the definition to a public scope. However especially in large companies with large audiences the benefits could already be realized by a limitation on a pure intrinsic scope, however how should it then reflect those aspects where an interaction with the public is becoming mandatory (e.g. sales department, public relations, etc.)
I'm focusing on this clarification as I do see exactly the boundary between the social media with public visibility and those with limitation within a company is crucial, key to success but difficult and it will be mandatory in future to manage these boundaries and borders of internal and external audiences and the respective information flow.
As we need to control to a reasonable extend the information flow in-/out-side the company a clear definition of what Enterprise 2.0 really is all about is somehow a must to get the same understanding by all parties involved.
.
I show today a tendency that it might be better to define the scope as such that this particular challenge is somehow included.
What are your thoughts on this or did I even miss the point?
Regards,
Jeannot Muller
Discussing something as protean as E2.0, I think me need more a direction than a strict definition (btw isn't it about making companies less similar ?). I tried myself to find a comprehensive definition two years ago and the result I blogged was a very long sentence that was not usable as such (IMHO). But there was on thing that coincides with you new one : it started with "it's a set of means that"... Maybe that's what matter and what we all agree on : technology alone is not enough, it's a sytem or a "set of means".
I finally could understand and interprete the meanings of E2.0 when I clustered the bits around the core which I borrowed from Robles in an O'Reilly style. Imho E2.0 is technology that gathers around a social core, because enterprises are social networks. In an enterprise network however there is more communication between groups happening than on social networks, where the communication is between individuals mostly (Fulkerson http://ostatic.com/blog/the-future-of-collabora...). The topics are different, the communication patterns are similar though.
If s.o. is interested, my meme map is under an educational CC-Licence and can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluenote84149/3655...