SYS-CON Media
Seminar Information
More Info
Hotel Info
WebDDJ.SYS-CON.com


Sponsors
Event Partner:

Platinum Sponsor:
Also Sponsored By:

Who Should Attend?
Web developers, Web designers, senior architects, project managers,technology evangelists, user interface architects, consultants, CTOs, and anyone looking to stay in front of the latest Web technology!

Can't Attend This Seminar?
Try Flex FREE Now and Get Updates on Future Events!

You will find a FREE copy of Adobe Flex 2 Trial CD in your conference (collector's) laptop bag!

Coming This Fall: Rich Internet Applications with Adobe Flex and Java: Secrets of the Masters
Wikipedia Nixes "Enterprise 2.0"
Where Is Humpty-Dumpty When You Need Him?

(August 19, 2066) - This week's remarkable deletion, from Wikipedia, of the useful colloquy "Enterprise 2.0" coined by a Harvard Business School professor (Andrew McAfee, pictured) and popularized by Web 2.0 Journal editor-in-chief Dion Hinchcliffe - has set the cat among the pigeons.

When someone as eminent as Prof. Andrew McAfee, who first coined the term in March 2006, is writing articles in the MIT Sloan Management Review entitled "Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration", then it is surely an odd time for Wikipedia, of all reference sources, to be suggesting that there's no consensus on the value or meaning of such a term. McAfee is an associate professor with the Technology and Operations Management Unit at Harvard Business School, so he is no lightweight. His HBS faculty blog gave an early account of the nixing on Thursday.

The most insightful view on "Enterprise 2.0" in recent times has been Peter Rip's: because he entirely "gets" that Enterprise 2.0 apps will be built, not by the vendors, but by the users - but wonders if he's clapping with one hand still when applauding this massive disruption:

"So Enterprise 2.0 as a platform shift is mostly about the enabling technologies. Web 2.0 rode the back of Open Source and Moore's Law to crack the economic barrier in building web based services. What followed were technologies for making applications richer (AJAX), easier to build (Ruby on Rails), and easier to integrate (REST and RSS). 

But only a tiny community of developers have built Web 2.0 apps using AJAX, ROR, or LAMP.  It is really just a few thousand people -- and very few work in large enterprises or ever will, again.  So how will the Enterprise 2.0 apps get built?  I doubt it is from a startup like Jotspot who has no business process expertise nor business data management expertise.  I doubt it is Oracle or SAP who pride themselves on selling Sherman Tanks as radiation-hardened compact cars. The users will build Enterprise 2.0 apps, not the vendors. 

The question is who will "get it" first?"

(My emphasis.)

Dion Hinchcliffe not only gets it, he propagates it...and does so on an increasingly impressive scale. He has this to say about Enterprise, v2.0 style:

"I do find there are real-world examples of entirely new and successful business models emerging on the Web that show these potentials are beginning to be realized.

Yet reality still holds: A great many startups, as well as traditional companies trying to use enterprise-style Web 2.0 for competitive advantage, will discover that being #1 or #2 in the market is the only real way to get the scale and market leadership needed to flat-out win."
Hinchcliffe continues:
"Part of the issue is that most of the good markets are already dominated by a few leading players.  The biggest opportunities are to either 1) create an entirely new market and 2) use disruptive technologies to upset existing market leaders (like MySpace is apparently doing)."
.
About Jeremy Geelan
Jeremy Geelan is President & COO of Cloud Expo, Inc. and Conference Chair of the worldwide Cloud Expo series. He appears regularly at conferences and trade shows, speaking to technology audiences both in North America and overseas. He is executive producer and presenter of Cloud Expo's "Power Panels" on SYS-CON.TV.

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

Register | Sign-in

Reader Feedback: Page 1 of 1

I apologize for the repeated posts. It was not intentional. It was an error on my part. Thanks to all.

Well, wikipedia is definitely revolutionizing the way we access information online. However, can we honestly say that the content provided by Wikipedia maintains accuracy and integrity. Really, there are many people from accross the world that have access to edit and change content online. In light of that, is there a way of differentiating fact from fiction. In essence, is wikipedia a trustable source.

Please read my article if you want to know more: http://www.askdrweb.com/2006/08/14/wikipedia-%e2%80%93-is-it-a-trustable...

Well, wikipedia is definitely revolutionizing the way we access information online. However, can we honestly say that the content provided by Wikipedia maintains accuracy and integrity. Really, there are many people from accross the world that have access to edit and change content online. In light of that, is there a way of differentiating fact from fiction. In essence, is wikipedia a trustable source.

Please read my article if you want to know more: http://www.askdrweb.com/2006/08/14/wikipedia-%e2%80%93-is-it-a-trustable...

Well, wikipedia is definitely revolutionizing the way we access information online. However, can we honestly say that the content provided by Wikipedia maintains accuracy and integrity. Really, there are many people from accross the world that have access to edit and change content online. In light of that, is there a way of differentiating fact from fiction. In essence, is wikipedia a trustable source.

Please read my article if you want to know more: http://www.askdrweb.com/2006/08/14/wikipedia-%e2%80%93-is-it-a-trustable...

Well, wikipedia is definitely revolutionizing the way we access information online. However, can we honestly say that the content provided by Wikipedia maintains accuracy and integrity. Really, there are many people from accross the world that have access to edit and change content online. In light of that, is there a way of differentiating fact from fiction. In essence, is wikipedia a trustable source.

Please read my article if you want to know more: http://www.askdrweb.com/2006/08/14/wikipedia-%e2%80%93-is-it-a-trustable...

Well, wikipedia is definitely revolutionizing the way we access information online. However, can we honestly say that the content provided by Wikipedia maintains accuracy and integrity. Really, there are many people from accross the world that have access to edit and change content online. In light of that, is there a way of differentiating fact from fiction. In essence, is wikipedia a trustable source.

Please read my article if you want to know more: http://www.askdrweb.com/2006/08/14/wikipedia-%e2%80%93-is-it-a-trustable...

It's actually been deleted twice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enterprise_2.0

- because the term has achieved borderline currency at best. Basically, one prominent usage isn't enough for what's basically a dictionary definition.

>> weirdsville commented on the 19 Aug 2006:
>>
>> Perhaps Wikimedia Foundation's Brion
>> Vibber doesn't see "2.0" as being a useful
>> version number?

Well if that's the case he can forget my vote - he is a Candidate for the Election for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Foundation site says that
votes are being accepted until 23:59 UTC Monday, August 28, 2006.

Perhaps we can have an "Election 2.0" some other time. ;-)

Perhaps Wikimedia Foundation's Brion Vibber doesn't see "2.0" as being a useful version number?


Untitled Document

Learn Flex in the Flex Track at the AJAXWorld Conference & Expo October 2-4 in Santa Clara

Stay tuned for information on upcoming Flex Seminars!