So I was reading up on John Newton's impressions of the Enterprise 2.0 conference a few weeks back... he was frustrated by the lack of a unifying definition of just what it was:
this doesn't mean that there was a lot of clarity on the meaning of the term Enterprise 2.0 at the conference. Although Web 2.0 had no less than Tim O'Reilly and John Battelle to define what that term means (barely), Enterprise 2.0 has no such authority. Consensus says that it is just Web 2.0 for the enterprise. However, researching the concept a couple of years ago, E2.0 is about taking the social aspects of Web 2.0, collaboration, social networks, user contribution, wisdom of crowds and social tagging and voting and applying it to information, documents and content in the enterprise
Interesting... blogs allow anybody to speak on a topic, and report news... Wikis allow anybody to take part in creating an authoritative knowledge repository... social networks allow people to bypass hierarchy structures and get things done by making "friends" and "connections" that want to help you.
Web 2.0 fundamentally means the end of the expert, but it took two "experts" to define that.
How deliciously ironic...
In contrast, since there is no accepted "expert" telling us what Enterprise 2.0 is, and since we're all just a bunch of amateurs fumbling towards the right answer, then Enterprise 2.0 is actually more Web 2.0 than Web 2.0. We know a fundamental change is occuring, we just aren't quite sure what it will look like when we're done.
Well, then... I guess the right thing to do is sit back, and lets these guys fight it out for a while. Let the self-anointed ones battle for mindshare, let the answer present itself, and then come up with a definition.
I'll throw in my two cents next week...