Andrew McAfee's Blog - Latest Comments in A Defining Moment

Re: A Defining Moment

agensbobet — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 01:56:20 -0000

After read a couple of the articles on your website these few days, and I truly like your style of blogging. I tag it to my favorites internet site list and will be checking back soon. Please check out my web site also and let me know what you think. 77Dewa SITUS JUDI POKER dan DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA 77Dewa SITUS JUDI POKER dan DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA 77Dewa SITUS JUDI POKER dan DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA 77Dewa SITUS JUDI POKER dan DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA 77Dewa SITUS JUDI POKER dan DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA Download Au Mobile Indo Mod Apk Terbaru Au Mobile Indo Mod Apk Au Mobile Indo Modnn Mod Au Mobile Indo Mod Apk Kontes Seo Agen Bola Poker Kontes Seo Bola Poker Mas Gie Bisnis Indonesia
agen sbobet agen ibcbet agen sbobet agen ibcbet cara bermain sbobet agen poker online indonesia poker online game poker permainan poker poker uang asli dewa poker cara bermain poker agen bola sbobet agen bola agen bola online situs agen bola online agen bola tangkas agen bola judi bola agen sbobet

Re: A Defining Moment

BlakeKirkpatrick — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:04:12 -0000

State law on child custody does not dictate who gets the tax deductions. If your child custody agreement is entirely silent on this issue, the parent with primary residential or sole child custody issues will have all of the tax benefits available through the children. That party will be able to claim the children as deductions, and so forth. This can be a significant issue. There are parents who simply assume that if they are paying thousands of dollars per year in support, they will be able to take the children as deductions. Not so. This is incredibly important when you consider that all child support payments are not tax deductible to the payor and they are not taxable to the recipient parent.

Re: A Defining Moment

ProfySpace — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:01:55 -0000

By @amcafee Enterprise 2.0 definition, it’s just technique but not tool(s). I think such way leads to big confusion for businesses

Re: A Defining Moment

Hank Mobley — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:51:02 -0000

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/blo....
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.... 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/photo...

Re: A Defining Moment

Bertrand Duperrin — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:04:47 -0000

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".

Re: A Defining Moment

Tom Graves — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:15:36 -0000

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... ) 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?

Re: A Defining Moment

Rotkapchen — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:14:51 -0000

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.