« Microsoft's Unified Communications Predictions | Main | Oracle's View On Enterprise 2.0 (Part Two) »

January 11, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Great post Mike! With any concept that gets elevated to the state of "buzz term" (like enterprise 2.0 or anything else with "2.0" slapped on the end of it), there is danger in getting lost in the hype. The conversation meanders to a discussion of specific technologies ("tagging is great!") or gets co-opted for marketing purposes with the implicit assumption that enterprise 2.0 is good for its own sake.

McAfee has done a solid job of bringing a definition to the technological and cultural change that is occurring in businesses across the world. But, it's up to those in the field to actually do something with that definition. To apply it with action. The focus should be on figuring out how we can help our employees and customers with the problems they face -- not that "enterprise 2.0" is good in and of itself.

susan scrupski

The definition of enterprise 2.0 has been debated in pundit circles for years. See my post & comments from August 2006 when it was being hammered by Wikipedia.

If you can martial public opinion to center on a single definition, I'll support you. Crafting and preserving the definition free of vendor influence is highly encouraged.

Peter Kim

Mike - directionally, I like where you're going with this. If we start defining E2.0 from the ground up - by technologies or marketing uses - we'll be waiting for E3.0 to untangle the mess.

Most of today's big thinkers on E2.0 come from the technology world, despite the huge numbers of marketing-focused social media participants. When those people wake up, I think we'll see things start to evolve rapidly.

David B Johnson

The part this discussion fails to address is when the CIO comes screaming to Oracle's salesman " I need E2.0!", the salesman sends in not a theorist to debate what E2.0 might mean to the guy with the check, but a workman who has to implement whatever was discussed or more commonly whatever the levels of business and technology people, several levels below the CIO and the bloggers, think might be useful.
Then further definition is needed along with Roadmaps for 2-5 years, and lets not forget Legal who just told the techs that Unified Messaging will not be permitted as phone conversations must not be archieved and Records Management that claims they must also have a finger in the pie.
Oh! and did they mention that they want it all in context? So that the chats, visible forums, blogs and CM availability is focused on the project you are working on at this minute, not this morning?
Welcome to the reality of E2.0
This is why there is no homogenious definition of E2.0, it is dynamic, fungable, and evolving. It is what it needs to be at the moment it is needed. And it better be easy to cross utilize the various pieces and they better be able to access common repositories or it isn't "Enterprise".
In my workmans view of E2.0 it's about restoring the connection we had when we all worked in the same office, when we passed each other in the hall, when you knew who to ask about something, whether it was policy, technology or baseball. But now it's on a global scale.
The time for E2.0 theory pundits is drawing to a close. The Bricklayers are already building the cities and the pundits better start instead reviewing where we are and where we need to go and why.
Remember, even Tagging was dropped by Search Engines in the last century for good reason!
Full disclosure - I work for Oracle and have worked in the past with Billy Cripe on Content Management.


web 2.0 is good platform for enterprises
it's basically sharing information with each other so it will definitely improve the productivity.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter