How does this sound? Is it the right definition? Let us know.
Hello Andrew, and what about using the web like a platform through APSs to reduce the weight of the TICs management? I think that this is a important point, (often forgotten) of web 2.0.
The “2.0” metaphors seem to me to be most useful for their negative, rather than their positive, content. They assert that there was once a “1.0” which has now been superceded. We can define what is gone, but it is harder to say what is developing in its place since this is, as yet, almost by definition, uncircumscribed (otherwise we would already be talking about “3.0"). So I gravitate towards the “What it is not” section - I think “2.0” comes out most clearly in such contexts, and I think you’ve got those contexts right. I incline towards adding “monolithic” to what has been superceded (enterprise portals are horribly monolithic, content management systems are monolithic), and contrast that with “modular” (although “modular” is suggestive of something larger - perhaps “piecemeal” or “small-scale” would be better).
Your positive definition is thought provoking, but I’m less satisfied with it and hope here to contribute to clarification.
You appear to be drawing on the concept of “emergence” common in artificial intelligence and the philosophy of mind - a system has “emergent properties” when it exhibits complex forms which result from numerous simple operations.
Is this “emergence” a central signature of “2.0” communication? From Wikis we certainly sometimes arrive at highly sophisticated results (e.g. Wikipedia pages) which can appear to have been perfectly conceived as coherent unities even though they have emerged from many much simpler disordered and disconnected actions and interactions (e.g. typo corrections). But are there other examples, beyond Wikis? Does blogging have this? Perhaps we can say that individual blogs are the “simple” and the global conversations are the complex, “emergent” aspect?
Your definition of “emergent” joins the AI/philosophical concept with properties of the software used ("freeform"), but in the four points you give under “freeform”, if I’ve understood you right, three appear to be more about the individual’s freedom than about the software - they aren’t forced to use the software ("optional"); there’s no workflow restricting what they’re allowed to do; “egalitarian” must also be something to do with the social context in which the software is used, rather than the software itself. Only the final one “accepting of different kinds of data” seems really to be a property of the software.
Software forms are clearly crucial for “2.0”, but perhaps you need to disentangle something about the changing organisational contexts of use?
I like this as the definition of /something/, And the term “Enterprise 2.0” might be a little too vague or all-encompassing to be restricted to only _emergent, freeform platforms_. Sure, you have the right to define it as such, but don’t be surprised if the term “freeformly emerges” into new meaning 
And I guess I’d take issue with co-opting the word “platform”. If I were to pick a word that meets your definition, it would be “knowledgebase”. Perhaps knowledgebases seem too static or “1.0” right now, but that’s really what you’re building when you enable an army of publishers.
Overall, though, do I believe that future Enterprise architecture will include socially-constructed, emergent, freeform knowledgebases? You bet! I look forward to seeing more discussion about this kind of “Enterprise 2.0” and have been writing a lot about it on my blog as well (specifically, regarding the enterprise tagging article you mentioned.)
oops, look like some of my comment got chopped out… guess that part wasn’t necessary anyway as the rest pretty much stands on its own
Hello Andrew.
I have a question.
SNS(Social Networking Service) for enterprise can become Enterprise 2.0 tools?
Intranet SNS can be visible of office workers relation, so I hope it will become an accelerator for emergent.
Prof. McAfee:
In addition to your recent addition of “network effects” after the Fast Forward conference (http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/index.php/faculty_amcafee_v3/fastforwarding_to_a_better_understanding_part_1/ ), I believe there is one more element that is being assumed: trust . If the organization in unable/unwilling to solve the “cooperation problem” - as described by James Surowiecki in The Wisdom of Crowds - then these technologies could amplify problems rather than solutions.
I’ve expanded on this theme here: [Manual trackback]:
http://blog.softwareabstractions.com/the_software_abstractions/2007/02/defining_enterp.html
Do you agree? Or is trust and mutual cooperation (based on enlightened self-interest) assumed to be a given?
Your new definition extends your old one along 2 axes—both usefully and also problematically. The two axes are:
1. not just use within a company but with its stakeholder inside or outside the company, and
2. not just ‘social software’ but ‘social software platforms.’
I like #1 as a useful extension, but it points to something potentially problematic about the term “Enterprise 2.0” itself. Your new usage here raises the question whether it is the enterprise, the enterprise *software*, or the enterprise *practice* that is *2.0.*
Suppose a company uses blogs to communicate with customers but makes no use of them internally or for partner relations or collaboration. Is the company, as it were, an “Enterprise 2.0?” I don’t think so. The software qualifies—almost by definition. And the practice does too (although this is an empirical question and depends on *how* blogs are used to relate to customers).
Your new definition highlights an ambiguity in the term. Clearly, we mean to point to a change in an enterprise with this term. The first extension of your definition points out that this is a difficult thing to do.
Your second change—adding the word ‘platform’—almost seems to be motivated by this new problem. I.e. only if an organization adopts social software *as a platform* will we agree that it is “Enterprise 2.0.” “As a platform” seems to indicate a system-level (and maybe even system-wide) adoption, and this may be in conflict with the first extension you have made, where cases are connected by “or” not “and.”
I wonder whether things aren’t getting complicated enough these days to call for a more stringent, less ostensive definition in which “Enterprise 2.0” refers to a change in *a way of doing business* that is instantiated by the use of some or all of the SLATES platform.
But, what is that change? How do we define it? I.e. here we have the problem rearing its head ab novo: what is “Enterprise 2.0”!?
Simple
Open
On Demand
Short time-to-market cycles
Is what Enterprise 2.0 is.
Andrew, I’m a big fan of your work, but I think you need to update your definition again. Since you wrote this a year and a half ago, Facebook in particular has become a much more relevant tool for Enterprise 2.0. It’s really easy to add links to information sources (one of our editors created a widget for our staff blog that people can add to their pages). Sure, you can do this through an RSS reader, but there’s something extremely compelling about the blend of human context/personal identity and access to relevant information, and I see your bullseye model playing out here in a significant way. Many companies are adding their own closed groups in Facebook. There are some serious privacy issues being debated right now, but as a platform, it has a lot of potential.
So you don’t consider Youtube and such to be Enterprise 2.0 even though they’re used in a business sense by many businesses. What do you consider them, just web 2.0?
Letting the patterns and structure inherent in people’s interactions become visible over time is something I really think is OK on one hand, but very touchy on the other hand.
This is indeed very simple and open thing. Fans @ enterprise 2.0.
I beg to differ from some of your definitions. Your examples of Enterprise 2.0 is more or less similar to what I had expected.
Your examples of what is Not Enterprise 2.0 is something I would like to differ on.
Let me discuss them in the grouping that you have listed.
1. Wikipedia, YouTube, Flickr, MySpace, etc.
A knife is a knife is a knife, it can be used to stab someone, it can be used to cut veggies and meat and it can be used by artists to create masterpieces of carvings. Same reasoning here, the technology behind Wikipedia, YouTube etc can and is already being utilized by businesses for social interactions with their customers. Currently the more pronounced usage would be the adaptations of Wiki for businesses to support and interact with customers, this is extremely useful in the technical support dept of an Enterprise.
YouTube is being used by companies to promote their products. Ever seen Steve Jobs promoting his launch of Ipods on the YouTube? This is one of the many of such companies, big or small utilizing this technology to interact with the customers and potential customers.
The rest for eg myspace, facebook etc are being used by companies to group their customers together as a community to enhance the feeling of belonging so as to further secure customers’ loyalties.
2. Most corporate Intranets today.
I would agree that this is definitely not Enterprise 2.0 But, I repeat the word But, with suitable connections to the Internet, the Intranet of a company can play a role in social interactions of the company. Though I have not seen too many of such instances yet. Security and data security would be a concern at the moment.
3. Groupware and information portals.
Groupware incorporates collaboration tools which can help in social interactions within the companies but are yet to be fully utilized for Enterprise 2.0 but Information Portals definitely is or can be an Enterprise 2.0 tool. A portal with a forum, feedback, blog etc integrated would be extremely useful for interactions between enterprises and their clients.
4. Email and ‘classic’ instant messaging
I would agree that these are definitely not Enterprise 2.0.
Above are my humble observations, I stand to be corrected.
you’re extremely right in your comments about definition of Enterprise 2.0
how could connection problems between corporations be solved?..
also i got to say MK Taxi is a great ability
Interesting article. We’re now seeing the full 2.0 social network potential in the form of digg, reddit, facebook, linkedin and many others that have replaced or is phasing out old traditional news media. More power to the people.
Today, we all accept this fact that the world is becoming increasingly dependent upon technologies whether it is IT, Manufacturing or medical sector. The Internet has become a major shareholder. Businesses across the world are greatly influenced by the IT technologies. However the Enterprise 2.0 and social media tools alone will not transform or change the organizational hierarchy; but one can say that the things will move bit fast for the adoption of technologies in the organizations than in the recent past.
To me Enterprise 2.0 is a term for the technologies and business practices that liberate the workforce from the constraints of legacy communication and productivity tools like email. It provides business managers with access to the right information at the right time through a web of inter-connected applications, services and devices. Enterprise 2.0 makes accessible the collective intelligence of many, translating to a huge competitive advantage in the form of increased innovation, productivity and agility.
The Revised Definition of Enterprise 2.0
Dr. McAfee’s revised of Enterprise 2.0 provides interesting insight into his view of Enterprise 2.0. As he is the author of the term, “Enterprise 2.0”, everyone else can only choose to agree or disagree with his authentic revised definition.
Andrew gives examples of E2.0 and examples of what’s not E2.0 and here’s what’s NOT Examples of Enterprise 2.0:
•Wikipedia, YouTube, Flickr, MySpace, etc. These are for individuals on the Web, not companies. Some companies use sites like YouTube for viral and stealth marketing, but let’s explicitly put these activities outside our definition of Enterprise 2.0.
•Most corporate Intranets today. As discussed earlier, they’re not emergent.
•Groupware and information portals. Again, these tools don’t facilitate emergence, although this may be starting to change. Groupware and portals also seem to be less freeform than the Web 2.0 technologies now starting to penetrate the firewall.
•Email and ‘classic’ instant messaging, because transmissions aren’t globally visible or persistent. Some messaging technologies do ensure that contributions are persistent.
For me, most interesting are the 3rd and 4th bullet points because they exclude most legacy Groupware applications which many vendors are trying to throw into the Enterprise 2.0 bucket simply to take advantage of the buzz. This mislabeling of products does themselves, their customers and the technology industry a disservice and creates unnecessary and pointless market confusion.
Firstly, the vendors do themselves a disservice because rather than trying to reposition existing products they should continue to invest in R&D and innovation to create new products that are authentically Enterprise 2.0 compliant.
Secondly, their customers are being disserviced because they’re being misguided by trusted vendors with products that won’t deliver the potential benefits of authentic social computing and being sold propositions that won’t stand the test of time.
Thirdly, the technology industry is being disserviced because we are on the cusp of a new era in computing – the Social Computing Era and we, the technology industry should be doing everything we can to accelerate its adoption because its evolution unleash the untapped resource of social collaboration within organizations which is the catalyst for the emergence of the information economy where, as Steve Jurvetson predicts the market trend where value of information traded will outstrip to value of physical goods traded. More importantly, this market is the realization of a more balanced lifestyle for the knowledge worker and their families. The flattening and erosion of non-value-adding corporate hierarchies, dismantling of non-value-adding tiers of middle management and the creation of an economy based on the value creation of knowledge transfer on a just-in-time basis.
I agree with your definition of Enterprise 2.0 and I like most of the examples you brought up. Great example that you brought out is MK Taxi. When I first heard about the system I was totally amazed and I still am.
If you ask me enterprise 2.0 is giving people the more power. The content is provided by people and is controlled by the people which means that there is more power in the hands of the people. For Eg. Take digg. It’s entire news is provided by it’s strong userbase and not by the digg staff.
Page 1 of 1 pages
