Comments on: Study: Web 2.0 easy to use, hard to quantify http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/07/06/study-web-20-easy-to-use-hard-to-quantify/ Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:28:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Arjun Thomas http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/07/06/study-web-20-easy-to-use-hard-to-quantify/comment-page-1/#comment-21011 Arjun Thomas Sat, 07 Jul 2007 15:10:00 +0000 http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/07/06/study-web-20-easy-to-use-hard-to-quantify/#comment-21011 Joe, Nice article, made for an interesting read... looking forward to further posts on the subject of Web 2.0 cheers, Arjun. Joe,

Nice article, made for an interesting read… looking forward to further posts on the subject of Web 2.0

cheers,
Arjun.

]]> By: Paula Thornton http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/07/06/study-web-20-easy-to-use-hard-to-quantify/comment-page-1/#comment-20909 Paula Thornton Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:04:49 +0000 http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/07/06/study-web-20-easy-to-use-hard-to-quantify/#comment-20909 As to the quote from the individual suggesting that their competitors quickly close the gap...such is the case when you're just 'standing up' technology. The opportunity is in the squishy...the opposite end of the operating spectrum from locking down bits and bytes. If they were to adopt policies that suggested that the technology was only 10% of the solution...they'd have a lot more to compete against. How is it that anyone can align being 'on the edge' solely to digits? Again, they forget the deeper definition of technology (courtesy of Clayton Christensen) "the processes by which an organization transforms labor, capital, materials, and information into products and services of greater value". Most disruptive technologies are not inherently digital (at some level, everything is digital): engines of every kind (steam, gas, turbine), pulleys, cranes, etc. But it only appears so because we've moved from a mechanistic focus to an informational focus (floated down a river of digits). As to the quote from the individual suggesting that their competitors quickly close the gap…such is the case when you’re just ’standing up’ technology. The opportunity is in the squishy…the opposite end of the operating spectrum from locking down bits and bytes.

If they were to adopt policies that suggested that the technology was only 10% of the solution…they’d have a lot more to compete against.

How is it that anyone can align being ‘on the edge’ solely to digits? Again, they forget the deeper definition of technology (courtesy of Clayton Christensen) “the processes by which an organization transforms labor, capital, materials, and information into products and services of greater value”. Most disruptive technologies are not inherently digital (at some level, everything is digital): engines of every kind (steam, gas, turbine), pulleys, cranes, etc. But it only appears so because we’ve moved from a mechanistic focus to an informational focus (floated down a river of digits).

]]>