Web 2.0 technologies were designed for consumers’ everyday use. Let’s take a look at Flickr, MySpace, or thousands of other sites made for the personal use of people. These services are mostly free and are made for people to share their photos, thoughts, contacts, interests and what not. People get personal benefit from using such a community and socializing. Therefore sites like Flickr represent Web 2.0. However, these sites can sometimes be used for business purposes, if a company needs to share files on the Web, for example. This can be a great opportunity to reach its existing and potential customers, get closer to them and therefore keep them more satisfied. If this is the case, you can call it an example of Enterprise 2.0, as the company benefits from using a community site.
If we talk about wikis, there are also different examples of their usage. The biggest wiki used by people all over the world is the well-known Wikipedia. Wikipedia is used by different people who need information for their studies, work or to broaden their mental outlook. This is a clear example of Web 2.0. But can we treat wikis as Enterprise 2.0? We surely can because intranet wikis like socialtext.com were designed as enterprise tools and are mostly used by enterprises.
Blogs were originated for sharing personal ideas and for self-expression Livejournal.com is an excellent example of an online personal diary. However, if you use a blog as a Web-space to discuss your company's products with customers, then we have an example of Enterprise 2.0.
Some bloggers use terms like Enterprise Web 2.0 and draw a distinct line between this term and Enterprise 2.0. They say that Enterprise 2.0 tools change the organizational structure and relationships inside of a company and that Enterprise Web 2.0 technologies are less powerful and are not able to bring profound shifts in organizational paradigm. I guess if there is a slight difference, then it’s too vague to actually separate these two terms. Both types of technology, that designed especially for enterprises and that brought to organizations by user communities and by employees, influence collaboration patterns within companies. This change in collaboration can affect management standards and the structure of a company. Anyway, I guess it is a good topic for discussion, so I’ll be happy to get your feedback on this post.
Generally speaking the big difference between Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 is more cultural than technical. Or as one article put it, "There's a big cultural difference between the Web 2.0 people and the IT department."
Web 2.0 (or Enterprise 2.0) is amazing in that its premise is based on engaging or linking disparate stakeholders through a centralized process while still mainating local or regionalized autonomy. In essence independent entities collaborating on an as needed basis toward a collective outcome - like different stakeholders within a supply practice.
I referred to the Web 2.0 concept in a white paper I wrote in 2004:
It is my position that a true centralization of procurement objectives requires a decentralized architecture that is based on the real world operating attributes of all transactional stakeholders starting at the local or regional level. In other words, you gain control of your spend environment by relinquishing centralized functional control in favor of operational efficiencies originating on the front lines. This is the cornerstone of agent-based modeling. (Note: Agent-based modelling is a term with which every Web 2.0 enthusiast should become familiar).
Following the supply (chain)* practice theme, Software vendors like SAP (with Safe Passage) and Oracle (Project Fusion) are trying to create/transition their somewhat passive or static ERP-based applications to a near real-time tool through the introduction of their respective Service Oriented Architectures (SOA). These "passive" links or loose couplings represent the complexity to which you had referred and are therefor not representative of a true Web 2.0 environment.
If you would like a link to the full answer as well as associated case studys send me an e-mail at qspdvsfjotjhiutAsphfst/dpn with the word WEB 2.0 in the subject line.
What you refer to I see as a healthy balance between top-down and bottom-up approaches in organization management. I was right in the process of drafting a post on that topic. Stay tuned, you feedback is welcome.
Andrew
Thnaks,
Ric Apps Consulting