As readers of this blog know, Dan Keldsen and I are developing an AIIM training course and Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0, and in that pursuit have assembled a panel of advisers including Andrew McAfee, David Weinberger, Stowe Boyd, Patti Anklam and Eric Tsui. Interaction with the panel has been invaluable. The exercise is interesting on several fronts, including the factor that we are using some Enterprise 2.0 tools to collaborate.
The survey we conducted is now closed and we are compiling results. The report and training promise to be chocked-full of insights. There is one development I would like to share now, pre-publication, as it provides insights on the topic of Enterprise 2.0 in many ways, and could benefit from your input.
Many of you know that Andrew McAfee is credited with coining the term Enterprise 2.0, and that he defines it as, "The use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers."
In our survey we asked respondents (there were over 400) to choose "their" definition of Enterprise 2.0 from a diverse list that we had compiled, which included Andrew's definition. No single definition emerged as a popular perspective. Top candidates were
Technology that enables people to collaborate and/or form online communities
The application of Web 2.0 to the enterprise
The next generation of enterprise content management (ECM)
The use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers (Andrew's definition).
Again though, not one of these garnered enough selection to position it as a clear common understanding in the marketplace. This, compounded with the fact that our survey is pointing to the fact that confusion and ignorance concerning Enterprise 2.0 are rampant, and primarily responsible for tentative embracing at best, made Dan and me feel we should take a stab at coming up with a succinct and clear definition, around which we could frame the rest of our work, not in contradiction to Andrew’s definition, but one that perhaps sheds more light and is a bit more comprehensive.
After toiling for 2 days, we released a definition to our panel. All intellectual he## broke lose. Seriously, the collaboration that ensued was powerful, and would not have been possible, in the given time frame if not for the power of the Enterprise 2.0 tools that we are using. That said, it is interesting to note that shortly into this exercise, we resorted to an older technology, e-mail. I do not know if this is due to our ages (Sorry panel, but lets face it, we are not Millenials.), or if certain issues/tasks just lend themselves to particular tools. (Indeed, we are positioning Enterprise 2.0 as an evolution in business practice and IT, not a revolution, positioning earlier technologies such as e-mail as not only predecessors, but still relevant components to an Enterprise 2.0 strategy). In any regard any regard it happened.
The volume of intellectual capital/knowledge that arose was impressive. (We will be publishing the debate at a later time, forum still unclear.) In the end we did not all agree on a single definition. So Dan and I imposed “leadership” (I use that term loosely) on the group –(an issue we discuss in the Enterprise IQ and training), and stopped the ongoing debate in an effort to move on.
What definition did we come up with?
"A system of web-based technologies that provide rapid and agile collaboration, information sharing, emergence and integration capabilities in the extended enterprise"
So tell us – what do you think? Does this definition work at all for you? Feel free to make comments here.
By the way, it is not too early to register for the webinar in which we will be presenting our survey findings, or register for the Enterprise 2.0 training we will be conducting at the AIIM show.
Stay tuned . . .
