Comments on: Simple Definition of Enterprise 2.0

By: Bill Ives

Bill Ives — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:20:07 +0000

Paula

I agree with your change to systems as you have defined the term. It captures the spirit of what I was talking about, just clarifies better. However, I do not agree with people who suggest to take technology out altogether. While getting the non-technical issues right is the most important contributor to success, it still does involve technology. Bill

By: Rotkapchen

Rotkapchen — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:38:17 +0000

I find it ironic how readily many are enamored with your definition, Bill. A clear sign of where thinking is.

I would agree with it with one change: swapping ‘applications’ with ’systems’. Indeed, the focus on the applications is what decidedly makes something NOT qualify for Enterprise 2.0. Does that mean there are no applications involved — actually, I’d like to say yes — because they’re not applications as we classically think of applications. E2.0 is more about platforms, architecture and ‘apps’ (ala. applets, widgets, etc.) than classic applications and hardcoded processes/algorithms.

By: Jon Ingham

Jon Ingham — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:20:33 +0000

Bill,

I’m a bit late to the party, but after reading this and other posts and comments, I still can;t get my head around why Enterprise 2.0 should need to refer to applications at all.

Here’s my definition, which I think comes from 2.0 thinking:

Enterprise 2.0 is an organisation than invests in the development of social capital.

You’ll find my explanation for this conclusion at:

http://blog.social-advantage.com/2009/09/my-thoughts-on-20.html.

Regards, Jon.

By: Bill Ives

Bill Ives — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:51:56 +0000

Olivier – Thanks for your comment. From my view enterprise simply means within an organization as opposed to the broader Web. It could be non-profit or for profit. There is nothing complex here. Some people also talk about the extended enterprise to include business partners. Bill

By: Jon Husband

Jon Husband — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:26:02 +0000

Web 2.0 is about sites where the value is determined by the contributions of participants. A number of the newer collaboration platforms (blueKiwi, Jive, Personall, Brainpark) have started to address this issue, by aggregating and / or tracking interaction around issues, business problems, etc. such that various forms of analysis and interpretation of "value" can be made. There's also a discussion of this half-way through "Productivity in a Networked Era - ROII (Return on Investment in Interaction)" .. as well as in a number of blog posts by various people such as Matthew Hodgson, Valdis Krebs, Patti Anklam, Jessica Lipnack, yourself, Joe McKendrick, etc.

By: Olivier Amprimo

Olivier Amprimo — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:44:21 +0000

Bill,

If “Enterprise 2.0 is about applications where business value is determined through the contributions of participants.”, would you please define what is “Enterprise”?

Thank you,

Olivier

By: Bill Ives

Bill Ives — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:22:58 +0000

Chris – Thanks for your kind words. Michael – I certainly agree with you on the over use of 2.0. That is why I was very specific and limited in what I said. Bill

By: Michael Thomas

Michael Thomas — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:16:45 +0000

Everything has gone all 2.0 these days! Soon you will be getting brands re-branding themselves as 2.0 – Nike 2.0 the new generation of trainers!!!

By: Chris Yeh

Chris Yeh — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:03:01 +0000

Truer words were never spoken. I will be quoting you on that, Bill.

And the importance of participation helps illustrate the centrality of collaboration to Enterprise 2.0.

By: Adam Bullock

Adam Bullock — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:09:14 +0000

Simple and elegant, really solid definition.