Enterprise 2.0 Too
November 6, 2008
I don’t read many consultants’ reports. I am busy writing my own reports and studies. My co-authors do their best to alert me when a consulting firm tackles the search, text mining, and content mining space. Today one of my colleagues showed me a Web page with a chart from a recent Forrester report “Enterprise 2.0.” I was puzzled by the term. With more organizations facing significant financial pressure, the notion of a company not able to make it as an “Enterprise 1.0” outfit trying to leap to “Enterprise 2.0” struck me as silly. My colleague pointed out that “Enterprise 2.0” means an organization that wants to use “Web 2.0” technology to improve business processes and competitiveness. That did not help me one tiny bit. I think “Web 2.0” is even sillier than some of the other buzzwords I encounter; for example, folksomony (which I am not sure how to spell). My goodness, what’s wrong with describing an organization’s language use using a phrase such as “language use”. I know how to spell language use, and I even know that language use provides a path into understanding how an organization perceives itself and the outside world.
I looked at this diagram for a full two minutes. You can see a representation of this diagram in Larry Dignan’s “Enterprise 2.0: Progress Is Mixed but Experimentation Is Cheap” in his ZDNet blog post here. He’s more open minded than I am, so you may make more headway with your colleagues recycling Mr. Dignan’s thoughts. This addled goose thinks that chasing chimera when bread and butter systems don’t work is hazardous to one’s career and paycheck. Mr. Dignan includes links to recent Forrester reports that trot out the Enterprise 2.0 sound truck.
I am reluctant to reproduce the diagram because it is the work of consulting firm poised to strike dead the likes of McKinsey, Boston Consulting, Bain and Booz, Allen. A firm with this much intellectual fire power can reduce my goose nest to a charred ruin so I want to steer clear of legal laser beams. You can see the diagram by clicking this link.
Several comments:
- A collection of services does not make a failing or faltering business into a surviving business. The notion that one or more wikis, one or more widgets, or one or more fora (the Latin plural of forum, not the dreadful forums, please) makes something Enterprise 2.0 makes me chuckle. Any service applied without thought to a flawed business does zero to alter what makes the business flawed.
- The ragtag grouping of services and applications that have to do with communication is undisciplined. The unifying characteristic of the services listed on the graphic is not evident to me. Picking services that appear to be popular is fine. Say this. Picking services because a Web site has high traffic and one or more of these functions is a pragmatic way to sort horses and Web sites. Say this. To present services without expressing the red thread hooking each to the main argument leaves me without useful guidance.
- The timeline does not make sense to me. I can’t figure out the curves because I have not seen the metrics or the underlying data. I am giving Forrester the benefit of doubt because in my world, there is underlying data and nifty outputs that help me make sense of the numbers. But the x axis is impressionistic, and I am not certain that a service has a life cycle. Humans have been talking for a few years. Just because a human talks into a mobile phone or types an SMS message doesn’t change the talking function. The medium is secondary to the talking.
- Where is search? I think finding “stuff” in this Enterprise 2.0 world, assuming it exists, becomes important. Is the Enterprise 2.0 content protected from spoliation and discoverable? I can think of other questions, but I’m happy to let this one carry the burden for me.
I urge you to read Mr. Dignan’s write up. I like his work. I suggest you buy the Forrester reports or hunt for the information on Google News. You need to make up your own mind. For me, I want to flap my wings so I don’t fly over the dangerous stuff. In this case, my goose instinct is to gain altitude and change direction. No Enterprise 2.0 life cycles, time lines, and buzzwords for me. If I run into any McKinsey or Bain people, I will alert them that their commercial success is over. Forrester, turbo charged to an Enterprise 2.0 machine, is coming to eat their Consulting 1.0 lunch.
Stephen Arnold, November 6, 2008
Stephen Arnold, November 6, 2008
Comments
3 Responses to “Enterprise 2.0 Too”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
I often wonder why “search” is left out the E2.0 mix – particularly as the first “S” in McAfee’s E2.0 SLATES model stands for Search!
James Dellow,
Perhaps search is assumed to be “just there”? Another approach may be the answer to the question, “Has search become a problem?” Thanks for posting.
Stephen Arnold, November 6, 2008
Have a look/listen here –
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/wrapper.aspx?ar=2229&story=true&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.mckinseyquarterly.com%2fGoogles_view_on_the_future_of_business_An_interview_with_CEO_Eric_Schmidt_2229%3fpagenum%3d1%23interactive_google_schmidt&pgn=govi08_exhibit
Sorry, didn’t realise the link was so looooong…..
He suggests all sorts of 2.0 concepts without (afaics) mentioning 2.0…..
Bye, Barry