After last week's Enterprise 2.0 conference, numerous articles have mused as to what, exactly, Enterprise 2.0 even means. Some outrightly doubt that such a thing exists while others seem to indicate that Enterprise 2.0 has a very clear definition.
Jason Stamper's blog at CBR is one that seemed to straddle the line. Stamper proclaimed Enterprise 2.0 to be "whack" while imagining what [Insert Digit Here].0 we'd be at if the mainframe were considered Computing 1.0, and also cited a list of checkpoints for what enterprises needed to know about Enterprise 2.0, most of which seem like common sense: young people want Web 2.0 tools, social media should have a business rationale, harness the wisdom of your network, etc.
Oliver Marks of the Collaboration 2.0 blog at ZDNet had a different take. He noted the ambiguity about the definition of Enterprise 2.0 and wondered whether the technologies would ultimately meet the same fate as "Knowledge Management," a 1990s buzz word that seems to have gone nowhere and meant a lot of different things to different people. Of course, he also points out that Enterprise 2.0 and other such technologies may be the new updates to that very buzz word.
On a different note, with different reports saying different things about Enterprise 2.0 adoption, eWeek had an article saying that middle management is often holding back adoption of Enterprise 2.0. Many middle managers are not sure how Enterprise 2.0 tools fit into existing business processes and so may hold back before adopting them. At the same time, CIO reported on another study that concluded the generational divide in Web 2.0 to be largely a myth, saying that people over 51 were just as likely to be in the thick of online collaboration as were the younger workers.
Leave a comment