This title is the analogy I offered to a Forrester analyst who wrote a piece on “Enterprise Web 2.0” (the mis-aligned reference is the first clue of a disconnect). While he’s got some of the right lingo,

“The implications are huge and could lead to a fundamental redefinition of collaboration and business process.“

…he then suggests how to go about assessing a 2.0 vendor (as if there was such a thing, and that you’d select just one)

“Properly identifying the right vendor for your organization is all about aligning each vendor’s value proposition with your identified needs.“

Repeat after me the words clearly emblazoned on his forehead: Clue-less.
[Hmmm...wasn't that a theme here a few months ago?]

Besides suggesting to him that 2.0 (Enterprise or Web — but not something called “Enterprise Web”) is not ABOUT technology but is certainly enabled by technology, I point out that some of the vendor’s technologies he reviews would ‘prevent’ 2.0 adoption. It is clear that he’s been drinking too much vendor Kool-aid because he lists various 2.0 elements various vendors purport to deliver. He’s obviously never USED those offerings to recognize that you can call something anything you want — whether or not it actually delivers that value is a whole ‘nuther story.

In engaging in this exchange I realized that someone needed to make this definitive statement: in 2.0-land “best practice” (at least for various component functions) is not to be found in the typical technology incumbents. It’s found in very unlikely, high-energy environments and (hold your breath) — many of the vendors who made their money supporting one key function: findability (ala. Google, Yahoo! and by nature of their contribution to this conversation and other sound architectural commitments, FAST, certainly the best-positioned leader for Enterprise-class solutions).

I don’t recall seeing any of those vendors on the Forrester list.

Clearly, some of the incumbents mentioned do offer architectures from which sound 2.0 components can be launched. But, no one should buy into an infrastructure that is not open enough (or with the confidence that the vendor has a timeline to deliver such) to readily leverage the fruits of 2.0 thinking: a whole spectrum of 2.0 functions/features with new competitive versions coming out continuously.

Not once does he suggest that you likely wouldn’t want to get all of your 2.0 functions from a single vendor. Nor does he suggest that you find an architecture that can adopt any variety of 2.0 functions from the industry at large. Heaven forbid he should suggest that one key measure for selection is to ask their former clients how much effort it took to implement and truly leverage 2.0 capabilities with the environments.

[To suggest where not to look for a reasonable 2.0 architecture...let's just say, for the first time I'm rooting for Oracle (thanks to FFB colleague, Joe McKendrick).]