- Latest News
- Comment & Metrics
- Magazine Articles
- Jason Stamper's Blog
- Open Source Blog
- Newsletter Sign-Up
- Trend Micro buries the hatchet
- Should you look at GAAP or non-GAAP?
- Getting off (on) the Cloud
- Getting off the Cloud
- HDS tapping UK storage demand
- SAP's support price rise has industry in a quandary
- IBM’s Ilog buy is a “non event” says rival
- Who’s fitter: drummers or footballers? Phil Collins vs. Ronaldo!
- Do Macs now rule the US desktop market?
- UK shops selling out of iPhone 3Gs
- Why did Tucci oust VMware's Diane Greene?
- The difference between ‘cloud computing’ and SaaS? None whatsoever.
- Iona bought by Progress Software
- Last few days of Windows XP sales...
- Lombardi talks on-demand BPM
- Lessons in ‘Enterprise 2.0’. Lesson 1: don't mention Enterprise 2.0.
- 10 ways to cut software development costs
- Would the baddest Roadrunner please step forward
- Artist's impression of new 3G Apple iPhone revealed
- Enterprise 2.0 Conference off to Web 2.0-style start
- CBR Dining Club speaker named EMEA analyst of the year!
- Numara claims service desk management rivals are "going backwards"
- Sinequa says Microsoft buying Fast is a boon
- ASG On Verge of Massive BSM Acquisition
- Compuware 2.0? Led Zeppelin? Am I dreaming?
- 100 most influential tech vendors: you have to be kidding
- BlackBerry Bold: RIM’s iPhone killer?
- The 20 most useless British gadgets of all time?
- De-dupe becoming part of storage fabric?
Jason Stamper's Blog
Lessons in ‘Enterprise 2.0’. Lesson 1: don't mention Enterprise 2.0.
June 16, 2008
I’m still not sure I like all this ‘2.0’ nomenclature. Apart from anything else, it’s just too broad to really capture what people think they mean by it. Others think they know what they mean by it, but nobody else does. And those that know what people think they mean by it, are generally thinking something completely opposite to what people thought they knew they were thinking about it, if you know what I mean.
Imagine if the mainframe had been considered computing 1.0. That would have made midrange machines like the VAX described as 2.0, distributed servers like Unix boxes called 3.0, Windows NT would have ushered in 4.0 and thin server architectures from Citrix et al no doubt would be 5.0.
The whole Linux shout would probably have been 6.0 and now that we get to virtualisation of servers, storage and desktops, that would probably be known as 7.0.
The point is, the World Wide Web was only originated by Tim Berners Lee in 1989. Yet already we are to believe that we need a Web 2.0, or even as some are suggesting, 3.0.
Anyway I am equally unconvinced that there is any such thing as ‘Enterprise 2.0.’ Yet a whole conference called just that just ran in Boston last week, attracting attendees from far and wide to hear what Enterprise 2.0 is all about.
Anyway, whether I think the concept is based in reality is perhaps a moot point. But for those who didn’t make it along to Enterprise 2.0, here is a summary of the “top learnings” from the conference, according to David Spark and snipped from his blog [Click continue reading for more on this blog entry.]
So, according to David Spark, these are the top learnings from Enterprise 2.0:
+ Young people entering the workforce communicate with Web 2.0 tools. They want more than just email.
+ Cloud computing is an easy way to launch a service and scale, but it’s far from being a true utility like electricity.
+ To innovate, you need to harness the wisdom of your network. First start with your staff and then move to partners and your audience.
+ When you create a collaborate Enterprise 2.0 space, TRUST your audience. Release the desire to control. Don’t control. Even the CIA recommends this.
+ Change management. Adoption requires evangelism and constant reminders and associating Web 2.0 tools with everything you’re doing.
+ Don’t just deploy social media for the sake of deploying social media. Develop a strategic business rationale.
+ There are tons of companies that offer business social networking solutions. Some are trying to offer everything, and some are just trying to solve a single problem.
+ Allow people to engage with your company outside of your .com business address. Let them engage with your brand where they already like to go, like Facebook, MySpace, etc.
Most of these make sense to me. But then, distributed computing made sense without calling it computing 2.0. Read more from David and other Enterprise 2.0 bloggers at http://www.enterprise2blog.com/
Comments
Thanks for the concise summary of the event, what never ceases to disappoint is the endless quest for the silver bullet, instead of accepting the need for continual evolution instead of revolution.
I accept that if you don't pay attention and have a quest for the future at the core of running your business then it might feel like a revolution by the time you lift your head from the operational grindstone.
Surely the real challenge is to carve out time to pay attention to the strategic issues affecting your business, market and communities that you serve along side the operational execution and the tactical fire fighting that so often is painted to look like a strategic programme.
Marketeers, technologists and consultants love and seem to need something new as a means of generating demand borne of fear uncertainty and doubt. If we could only engage in long term dialogue that engaged people at all levels in terminology they could understand we may not need 2.0 or other such placeholders to drive people’s attention.
My simple checklist that has delivered results time and time again is
1. Strategic, Tactical, Operational elements of business need to work in harmony on a constant basis
2. Thinking about these over short, medium and long term drives prioritisation
3. If you cannot articulate in plain english it is doubtful in its value.
Lets face it if it does not increase or decrease something over a definable period of time and in doing so addresses a need you have now or in the future that it has no value
This for those interested is my v1.0 and consistent opinion unlikely to be upgraded or revised but continually evangelised and polished over the years.
Post a comment
back to top