One thing that impresses me in this discussion is the focus on large enterprises. I suppose one might expect as much with the title Enterprise 2.0, but there are small and medium enterprises. These might be the most susceptible to Web 2.0. Indeed, 37Signals has made a business in that very market.
Shiv Singh
· 2 years ago
Tom's perspective is certainly a refreshing and a much needed one. I believe that enterprise 2.0 is being a little over-hyped and as a community we must not over sell it ourselves.
The recent Forrester and McKinsey surveys highlight how these technologies are getting a mixed reception within the enterprise. Some organizations are just not geared towards bottom up collaboration and communication. Furthermore, not every knowledge worker in every company is expressive enough to want to use blogs and collaborate on wikis everyday. Maybe that time will come in the future, but it hasn't as yet.
Andrew I do disagree with you in one regard. Technologists will always take a positivist approach. It is upto us to explain that enterprise 2.0 is not just about the technologies but also about values and a way of working and sharing knowledge. By not talking about the softer sides of the enterprise 2.0 phenomena in your post above you're not doing it justice.
Susan Scrupski
· 2 years ago
Methinks thou dost agree too much, Andrew. What do you really think? ;-)
Jane McConnell
· 2 years ago
Andrew, the conversation between you and Tom is valuable reading for organizations considering 2.0 approaches for their intranets/portals. Too often, the dialogue in large companies gets pulled down to "do we want blogs or not". The bigger, more important issues get drowned, or in many cases never even considered. That's why I did a post (see link) about your and Tom's conversation. I closed with the results from one open question on the Global Intranet Surveys I conducted in late summer 2006. Out of the 101 organisations who participated, only 3 had "intranet 2.0" strategies. That may be a higher percentage than one would expect. The interesting thing will be to see how it evolves in the 2007 survey results.
Sara
· 2 years ago
The most interesting outcomes might well be in expanding the meaning of the 'enterprise' itself. As Bud said earlier, I do tend to think that this holds the most promise for small businesses and probably individuals who have much more power at their fingertips - and probably a greater need to use technology to connect, because they can't apply "raw power" to problems.
On the long term... it will be extremely interesting to note the changing landscapes of traditional enterprises as people who grew up in the non-hierarchical, linked web come to comprise the majority of workers. The culture shifts are likely to be disruptive.
Erik Huddleston
· 2 years ago
This is a thoughtful conversation with some great points on the barriers to adoption in a large enterprise. However, I think Andrew is giving too much weight to Tom's arguments in this post.
I believe there is a fundamental assumption that is flawed in the discussion. I don't think adoption in large enterprises is a "bottoms up" problem. I certainly believe that Tom's objections will limit the growth of Enterprise 2.0 via that model. Instead, my view is that adoption will be "bottoms out" instead. In other words, collaboration with partners, customers, and professional networks vs. coworkers. I've written up more extensive thoughts on this here:
Methinks thou dost agree too much, Andrew. What do you really think?
hotindir
· 2 years ago
This is a thoughtful conversation with some great points on the barriers to adoption in a large enterprise. However, I think Andrew is giving too much weight to TomÂ’s arguments in this post.
chainsaw
· 2 years ago
I'll be honest, this is the first time I've read about Enterprise 2.0 but I suspect it is strongly linked to the web 2.0 philosophy (a philosophy is more like what it is now.) If this is the case, I have to agree with you – it is indeed totally over rated and don't think it'll help to change the face of business and the world as much as people would like. The internet itself has certainly done that. Web 2.0 or Enterprise 2.0 is more like a philosophy (in my opinion) that has actually COME from the web and what the web brings (community, simplicity, ease of use, accessibility, information etc.)
personalized business gift
· 2 years ago
LetÂ’s not have one general conclusion about the potentials of Enterprise 2.0 or Intranet. ItÂ’s not all about negative outcomes. For Example, Motorola's initiative, which it calls "Intranet 2.0," has been wildly successful, with 70,000 people using it every day, including partners. Redshaw on the other hand admits that Enterprise 2.0 technologies don't exactly make for easy ROI calculations. The team creating an Enterprise 2.0 platform for a company is key to Redshaw. The team suggests that the smaller the team, the better.
oil paintings for sale
· 1 year ago
Enterprise 2.0 just like Web 2.0 requires that the techniques included in this bundle of great stuff must be mastered and used for the benefit of all. It must be used for the good of everybody and not destroying other people’s business in order to uplift yours. It is enough that this is very applicable to big enterprises thus it may be also applicable to SMEs.
All Comments
The recent Forrester and McKinsey surveys highlight how these technologies are getting a mixed reception within the enterprise. Some organizations are just not geared towards bottom up collaboration and communication. Furthermore, not every knowledge worker in every company is expressive enough to want to use blogs and collaborate on wikis everyday. Maybe that time will come in the future, but it hasn't as yet.
Andrew I do disagree with you in one regard. Technologists will always take a positivist approach. It is upto us to explain that enterprise 2.0 is not just about the technologies but also about values and a way of working and sharing knowledge. By not talking about the softer sides of the enterprise 2.0 phenomena in your post above you're not doing it justice.
Too often, the dialogue in large companies gets pulled down to "do we want blogs or not". The bigger, more important issues get drowned, or in many cases never even considered.
That's why I did a post (see link) about your and Tom's conversation.
I closed with the results from one open question on the Global Intranet Surveys I conducted in late summer 2006. Out of the 101 organisations who participated, only 3 had "intranet 2.0" strategies. That may be a higher percentage than one would expect. The interesting thing will be to see how it evolves in the 2007 survey results.
On the long term... it will be extremely interesting to note the changing landscapes of traditional enterprises as people who grew up in the non-hierarchical, linked web come to comprise the majority of workers. The culture shifts are likely to be disruptive.
I believe there is a fundamental assumption that is flawed in the discussion. I don't think adoption in large enterprises is a "bottoms up" problem. I certainly believe that Tom's objections will limit the growth of Enterprise 2.0 via that model. Instead, my view is that adoption will be "bottoms out" instead. In other words, collaboration with partners, customers, and professional networks vs. coworkers. I've written up more extensive thoughts on this here:
http://2glue.typepad.com/2glue_corporate_blog/2...
I linked to the Bill Ives post on this subject from http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/garfield/archiv...
Regards,
Stan