The FASTForward Blog » Is Cloud Computing Part of Enterprise 2.0?: Enterprise 2.0 Blog: News, Coverage, and Commentary

Is Cloud Computing Part of Enterprise 2.0?

by Joe McKendrick

November 25, 2009 at 1:12 pm · Filed under Cloud Computing, Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise Software, SOA, Web 2.0

I recently was talking with David Linthicum, author of a recently published work entitled Cloud Computing and SOA Convergence in Your Enterprise: A Step-by-Step Guide, which discusses the business case for considering cloud. In talking about cloud computing, our chat moved to Web 2.0, to which Dave made the observation that many in Web 2.0 circles do not see cloud computing as part of that paradigm. Why not? Dave says to some degree there are political/turf reasons, as some Web 2.0 proponents see cloud as a threat to their established order.

Add to that the fact that cloud and Enterprise2.0/Web 2.0 (I’ll address them as one in the same for this post) address problems at different levels. Namely, cloud addresses access to IT-centric services, such as storage capacity on demand, processing capacity on demand, and infrastructure on demand. For example, one of the key business values seen with cloud is the ability to scale up applications by adding off-site processors. The “private clouds” that are now being discussed arise out of virtualization solutions deployed on top of IT systems.

In the Enterprise/Web 2.0 view of the world, this is all behind-the-scenes stuff that the IT guys worry about. Enterprise/Web 2.0 proponents talk about building communities, collaboration, and moving information more openly and efficiently across networks.

What is happening, unfortunately, is that Enterprise/Web 2.0 and cloud are becoming two separate initiatives within enterprises, when they should be very closely linked. Because the essential value that Enterprise/Web 2.0 is bringing into organizations is the ability to conduct business, connect all essential parties in transactions, and open up formerly clogged information channels is through technology services that may be once, twice, or three times removed. In other words, delivered from the cloud. Facebook and Twitter are clouds, clear and simple.

As companies move to increase social networking and collaboration across their enterprises with internal and external tools and applications, the success of Enterprise 2.0 rests on their simplicity, accessibility and usability. In other words, complexity and technology issues are abstracted away from end-users. This is also the goal of cloud computing. Perhaps, on some level, cloud computing is actually “Enterprise 2.0″ for IT managers?

Share and Enjoy:

Permalink

34 Tweets

36 Comments »

Dean ThrasherNovember 25th, 2009 at 2:58 pm

I don’t think it’s a good idea to mix the ideas of cloud computing with Enterprise 2.0 concepts. While both rely on improved networking, they have different goals and address different needs.

Could computing is primarily about cost reduction. It makes efficient use of resources by allowing companies to scale computing systems according to demand. Ideally, cloud computing means that you always have the right amount of infrastructure support for your business applications.

Enterprise 2.0 is about productivity gains. It’s about using new communication and collaboration technologies to enable people to work together more effectively.

Trying to combine both efforts into a single IT initiative risks confusion.

Phil SimonNovember 28th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Here are my two cents. Your definition of Enterprise 2.0 seems to focus on social and collaborative technologies. Your hardly alone. Andrew McAfee does the same in his latest book, Enterprise 2.0. From your post:

If that’s your definition, then I wouldn’t put Clouds there. I’m not sure if they encourage collaboration.

SHAMELSS SELF-PROMOTION WARNING:
However, if you define Enterprise 2.0 a more broadly (as I do in my forthcoming book), the clouds qualify. I look at “E2″ as a term to encompass technologies such as SaaS, BI, MDM, SOA, clouds, and others that, while technically around at some point, were by and large not adopted by many organizations–at least not well.

In short, it’s all about how you define the term.