Exploring & Communicating the Future of the Future

Jeremy Geelan

Subscribe to Jeremy Geelan: eMailAlertsEmail Alerts
Get Jeremy Geelan: homepageHomepage mobileMobile rssRSS facebookFacebook twitterTwitter linkedinLinkedIn


Related Topics: RIA Developer's Journal

RIA & Ajax: Article

Wikipedia Nixes "Enterprise 2.0"

Where Is Humpty-Dumpty When You Need Him?

(August 19, 2066) - This week's remarkable deletion, from Wikipedia, of the useful colloquy "Enterprise 2.0" coined by a Harvard Business School professor (Andrew McAfee, pictured) and popularized by Web 2.0 Journal editor-in-chief Dion Hinchcliffe - has set the cat among the pigeons.

When someone as eminent as Prof. Andrew McAfee, who first coined the term in March 2006, is writing articles in the MIT Sloan Management Review entitled "Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration", then it is surely an odd time for Wikipedia, of all reference sources, to be suggesting that there's no consensus on the value or meaning of such a term. McAfee is an associate professor with the Technology and Operations Management Unit at Harvard Business School, so he is no lightweight. His HBS faculty blog gave an early account of the nixing on Thursday.

The most insightful view on "Enterprise 2.0" in recent times has been Peter Rip's: because he entirely "gets" that Enterprise 2.0 apps will be built, not by the vendors, but by the users - but wonders if he's clapping with one hand still when applauding this massive disruption:

"So Enterprise 2.0 as a platform shift is mostly about the enabling technologies. Web 2.0 rode the back of Open Source and Moore's Law to crack the economic barrier in building web based services. What followed were technologies for making applications richer (AJAX), easier to build (Ruby on Rails), and easier to integrate (REST and RSS). 

But only a tiny community of developers have built Web 2.0 apps using AJAX, ROR, or LAMP.  It is really just a few thousand people -- and very few work in large enterprises or ever will, again.  So how will the Enterprise 2.0 apps get built?  I doubt it is from a startup like Jotspot who has no business process expertise nor business data management expertise.  I doubt it is Oracle or SAP who pride themselves on selling Sherman Tanks as radiation-hardened compact cars. The users will build Enterprise 2.0 apps, not the vendors. 

The question is who will "get it" first?"

(My emphasis.)

Dion Hinchcliffe not only gets it, he propagates it...and does so on an increasingly impressive scale. He has this to say about Enterprise, v2.0 style:

"I do find there are real-world examples of entirely new and successful business models emerging on the Web that show these potentials are beginning to be realized.

Yet reality still holds: A great many startups, as well as traditional companies trying to use enterprise-style Web 2.0 for competitive advantage, will discover that being #1 or #2 in the market is the only real way to get the scale and market leadership needed to flat-out win."
Hinchcliffe continues:
"Part of the issue is that most of the good markets are already dominated by a few leading players.  The biggest opportunities are to either 1) create an entirely new market and 2) use disruptive technologies to upset existing market leaders (like MySpace is apparently doing)."
.

More Stories By Jeremy Geelan

Jeremy Geelan is Chairman & CEO of the 21st Century Internet Group, Inc. and an Executive Academy Member of the International Academy of Digital Arts & Sciences. Formerly he was President & COO at Cloud Expo, Inc. and Conference Chair of the worldwide Cloud Expo series. He appears regularly at conferences and trade shows, speaking to technology audiences across six continents. You can follow him on twitter: @jg21.

Comments (9) View Comments

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.


Most Recent Comments
Webwhiz 08/24/06 01:18:56 PM EDT

I apologize for the repeated posts. It was not intentional. It was an error on my part. Thanks to all.

Webwhiz 08/24/06 01:07:33 PM EDT

Well, wikipedia is definitely revolutionizing the way we access information online. However, can we honestly say that the content provided by Wikipedia maintains accuracy and integrity. Really, there are many people from accross the world that have access to edit and change content online. In light of that, is there a way of differentiating fact from fiction. In essence, is wikipedia a trustable source.

Please read my article if you want to know more: http://www.askdrweb.com/2006/08/14/wikipedia-%e2%80%93-is-it-a-trustable...

Webwhiz 08/24/06 01:07:11 PM EDT

Well, wikipedia is definitely revolutionizing the way we access information online. However, can we honestly say that the content provided by Wikipedia maintains accuracy and integrity. Really, there are many people from accross the world that have access to edit and change content online. In light of that, is there a way of differentiating fact from fiction. In essence, is wikipedia a trustable source.

Please read my article if you want to know more: http://www.askdrweb.com/2006/08/14/wikipedia-%e2%80%93-is-it-a-trustable...

Webwhiz 08/24/06 01:07:08 PM EDT

Well, wikipedia is definitely revolutionizing the way we access information online. However, can we honestly say that the content provided by Wikipedia maintains accuracy and integrity. Really, there are many people from accross the world that have access to edit and change content online. In light of that, is there a way of differentiating fact from fiction. In essence, is wikipedia a trustable source.

Please read my article if you want to know more: http://www.askdrweb.com/2006/08/14/wikipedia-%e2%80%93-is-it-a-trustable...

Webwhiz 08/24/06 01:06:55 PM EDT

Well, wikipedia is definitely revolutionizing the way we access information online. However, can we honestly say that the content provided by Wikipedia maintains accuracy and integrity. Really, there are many people from accross the world that have access to edit and change content online. In light of that, is there a way of differentiating fact from fiction. In essence, is wikipedia a trustable source.

Please read my article if you want to know more: http://www.askdrweb.com/2006/08/14/wikipedia-%e2%80%93-is-it-a-trustable...

Webwhiz 08/24/06 01:06:55 PM EDT

Well, wikipedia is definitely revolutionizing the way we access information online. However, can we honestly say that the content provided by Wikipedia maintains accuracy and integrity. Really, there are many people from accross the world that have access to edit and change content online. In light of that, is there a way of differentiating fact from fiction. In essence, is wikipedia a trustable source.

Please read my article if you want to know more: http://www.askdrweb.com/2006/08/14/wikipedia-%e2%80%93-is-it-a-trustable...

David Gerard 08/20/06 11:01:12 AM EDT

It's actually been deleted twice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enterprise_2.0

- because the term has achieved borderline currency at best. Basically, one prominent usage isn't enough for what's basically a dictionary definition.

67restQW 08/19/06 12:03:03 PM EDT

>> weirdsville commented on the 19 Aug 2006:
>>
>> Perhaps Wikimedia Foundation's Brion
>> Vibber doesn't see "2.0" as being a useful
>> version number?

Well if that's the case he can forget my vote - he is a Candidate for the Election for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Foundation site says that
votes are being accepted until 23:59 UTC Monday, August 28, 2006.

Perhaps we can have an "Election 2.0" some other time. ;-)

weirdsville 08/19/06 11:58:50 AM EDT

Perhaps Wikimedia Foundation's Brion Vibber doesn't see "2.0" as being a useful version number?