Enterprise 2.0: Ignore the Fads, Follow the Trends

A few years back, Andrew McAfee "coined" the term "Enterprise 2.0." Recently, he's been criticized on the web here, here, and here, for his definition... Critics are saying his definition is outdated, unhelpful, and flawed. Some of this criticism is a tad harsh, but a lot of it is valid. McAfee responded by re-stating what E2.0 is:

Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers.

Kind of light on the details, eh? He continued to define related terms like "social software", "platforms", "emergent", and "free-form"... which fleshed out the definition a bit... but still, I'm left with a big question. How is any of this actually helpful??? It doesn't mention technologies... it doesn't mention purpose... it doesn't mention value. Based on this definition alone, there's not really a compelling reason for anybody to get excited about it. Luckily, because of the Web 2.0 cool-aid, anything with a 2.0 after it will generate buzz, so people latched on.

Let's contrast this with the definition of ECM by AIIM:

Enterprise Content Management (ECM) is the strategies, methods and tools used to capture, manage, store, preserve, and deliver content and documents related to organizational processes. ECM tools and strategies allow the management of an organization's unstructured information, wherever that information exists.

Its not perfect, but it should be pretty dang clear to any businessperson what problems ECM solves, and what every day tasks will be easier if it is done right. It also makes it obvious that its about strategies and methods; not just tools and technologies.

I frequently lament that anybody is trying to define what Enterprise 2.0 is, before we even know what it is. The 2.0 clearly means that it is intended for the "next generation" of enterprise software... but what is the next generation of enterprise software? If it's nothing more than enterprise social software -- which is what McAfee says -- then why on earth do we also need the term "Enterprise 2.0"? If its just blogs, wikis, and next generation collaborating tools, then we already have a term: Web 2.0. In either case, the phrase "Enterprise 2.0" is useless.

Now, if Enterprise 2.0 is truly meant to define the "next generation" of enterprise software tools, then the term will one day become useful. However, since these tools are still being envisioned and designed as we speak, a definition is still fairly useless... since we don't know what Enterprise 2.0 is yet!

If anything, the definition of "Enterprise 2.0" should reflect the trends in enterprise software, not just the fads. Ignore blogs and wikis. Shun social software. Instead, take a good, hard look at the broad trends that will have a major effect over the next 10 years. Here is a small sample:

  • The never-ending increase in computer power: storage, network bandwidth, processor speed, and cloud computing... there will soon be another tipping point like there was in the early 1990s.
  • Retiring baby boomers, who are taking a lot of institutional knowledge with them en mass.
  • The millennials, who have never known a world without the internet, and who are natives to online collaboration.
  • Globalization: more competition means you need better tools to test out innovations. Companies need to fail faster, and learn better if they are to survive.

What do all these trends mean for Enterprise 2.0 software? It's hard to say for sure... but what is clear is that more and more of the most important data and software will emerge on the "edge" of your networks. Why have a central repository at all when the average laptops are powerful enough to run their own content management systems? The average user now has tremendous power to create content, and run easy-to-install collaboration tools. The genie is out of the bottle my friends... all we can do now is try to control the damage. Identity management, enterprise search, and distributed information management can help with security and content... but for the application proliferation problem, I'd bet on enterprise mashups.

As the baby boomers retire, you can forget the idea of teaching them new software so they can share their knowledge. No way, no how, ain't going to happen. Instead, you need a new system for capturing "people" knowledge as effortlessly as possible. My idea is to just rip-off Robert Scoble. He made a name for himself with nothing more sophisticated than a camcorder and some editing software. You want knowledge from technophobes? Why not engage them in one-on-one taped interviews? Low tech people-oriented solutions are frequently the best option for capturing content and context, although you will need something like an enterprise YouTube for consumption.

As the millennials enter the work force -- what some people call the "gamer generation" -- what will their needs be? The obvious solution is that they want something like Facebook for the enterprise. News flash: there already is Facebook for the enterprise... it's called Facebook. More compelling is the idea that employee management and business process management will evolve into enterprise simulation software. Something like "SimCity Enterprise Version". Software like this will need to be seeded with a ton of historical data, information about your processes and employees, and information about the current market. Then, you can run a simulation on the "what if" scenarios in a world of interdependent agents. This may seem far-fetched, but there is a lot of software out there right now that solves one specific piece of this puzzle... it's just that nobody has put all the pieces together yet.

We don't need another word for Enterprise Social Software... nor do we need to ride the coattails of Web 2.0 to sell the same old application with a Wiki bolted on. However, we do need to be aware that the enterprise will change a lot in the next 10 years: and not because of fads, but because of trends.

Comments

Love It!

I love it. Thought I know it makes you chafe, this sounds a lot like what SemWeb tech does:
"Software like this will need to be seeded with a ton of historical data, information about your processes and employees, and information about the current market. Then, you can run a simulation on the "what if" scenarios in a world of interdependent agents. This may seem far-fetched, but there is a lot of software out there right now that solves one specific piece of this puzzle... it's just that nobody has put all the pieces together yet."

You have a corpus of data culled from content items, transaction histories, employment data etc. Machines find the relationships inherent in the data and run "simulations" or, in SemWeb terms, "semantic searches", inferences, trend generation and pattern spotting. This is all done with sets of rules governing behavior - what you call "interdependent agents".

And you're spot on - nearly all the pieces to this puzzle are out there, they're just begging for assembly.

I've been blogging about this in my 10 requirements for Collaboration series (#4 coming out soon) which is really just a primer for next generation information management using not-so-scary terms. Check out the series over at http://blogs.oracle.com/fusionecm

Re: Love It!

I love it. Thought I know it makes you chafe, this sounds a lot like what SemWeb tech does

Depends on your definition of Semantic Web... if you use the latest definition which pretty much means "structured data accessible over the web," then the "Semantic Web" could play a role... although as I've said before, the Semantic Web is neither necessary not sufficient to enable next generation enterprise applications. Its just one path out of many that could lead to the goal... and which path to choose depends on a lot of practical limitations of enabling billions of agents sending messages between each other.

Personally, if I were writing an enterprise simulator, I'd use Erlang based agents using fault-tolerant asynchronous message passing, and skip the web protocols altogether. The web is just unnecessary overhead that would slow the whole thing down...

Trends v Fads

I want to devote more time to this, but for now...I think that the tools are the fads, but the way people can collaborate and interact, those are trends. The trends predate Andrew's coining of the term, but have been taking off since they got the flashy new term.

I think keeping the focus should be on how we work. If you look at what social platforms "are" and how they are used to communicate between different parties, it starts to get there. They aren't just blogs and wikis. What tools they are will evolve, the the platform, as an enabler, will evolve.

More on this later. The definition needs some work, and I think Billy's series on collaboration helps, but I don't think Enterprise 2.0 is a fad, except maybe for the term itself.

-Pie

Usability

Very interesting post, thanks Bex.

As a newbie in the field of ECM, what really strikes me is the almost complete lack of usability discussion, by anyone! Yet, go to any organisation that has either MOSS or UCM and listen to the opinions of the users (and thereafter business owners and IT). Well, I gather they are more than often not that satisfied. Ready-made functionalities are hardly ever usable as such. Yet, tayloring a usable UI by (somehow) connecting UCM workflows, frontend solutions, requirements for metadata and security is simply put a very challenging effort, if not impossible. Does Oracle care? They don't appear to. What about Microsoft? Well, perhaps a bit more, but not much. In any case, not all productivity claims seem to realise, due to lack of real adoption of newly implemented systems.

Vendors and experts are talking a lot(!) about existing pieces that "only" need be put together in order to "solve all problems". To me, this doesn't seem credible. Integration of separate software products, designed for limited purposes, restricts the means to implement usable UI solutions. It would seem that vendors should put more attention to end user needs, in the first place, and design their products accordingly. And not leave all usability thoughts to the hands of developers in the integration project..

What do you think guys, do you agree at all? Usability is a big trend, no? How do you see this, is anyone (any vendor) addressing this more than others?

Looking forward to more entries in this blog..

Best wishes,
Antti

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This form prevents comments spam...