Comments on: Enterprise 2.0, what is it?

By: Dude, Where’s My Market? : Venture Chronicles

Dude, Where’s My Market? : Venture Chronicles — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:46:13 +0000

[...] In a post I wrote in August 2006 on this brewing enterprise 2.0 thingey: [...]

By: Why the Wikipedia Enterprise 2.0 Debate is Irrelevant| Zoli’s Blog

Why the Wikipedia Enterprise 2.0 Debate is Irrelevant| Zoli’s Blog — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:33:31 +0000

[...] Enterprise 2.0, what is it? [...]

By: » OMG! They Killed Enterprise 2.0! Those Bastards! by Kingsley 2.0

» OMG! They Killed Enterprise 2.0! Those Bastards! by Kingsley 2.0 — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:37:16 +0000

[...] August 29th, 2006 The Wikipedians went and deleted our entry! Then we put it back, and now they want to delete it again! Those bastards! [...]

By: Neil Ward-Dutton

Neil Ward-Dutton — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:56:18 +0000

As I just said over at Peter’s, there are two problems with the term “enterprise” and “2.0″. What’s really being talked about is a set of technologies which potentially enable some interesting organisational behaviours and practices that previous “innovations” (like knowledge management, e-commerce storefronts) haven’t really delivered on (large-scale internal collaboration, customer co-creation etc).

We need to clearly distinguish between the technologies and their potential applications. The current label doesn’t work for me.

Don’t even get me started on the “2.0″ thing…

By: Den’s Enterprisey Foghorn / Enterprise 2.0 - phooey

Den’s Enterprisey Foghorn / Enterprise 2.0 - phooey — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:36:48 +0000

[...] The last week has seen a storm of debate around the Enterprise 2.0 meme. Especially among the Irregulars who mostly have a vested interest in how this plays out. I won’t go through it all but instead point to Jeff Nolan’s excellent summation of the various threads. In the fury of the debate I believe a central arguments was lost. [...]

By: Dennis Howlett

Dennis Howlett — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:00:04 +0000

Good tech summary Jeff – completely ignores the power plays. Of that I’m sure there’s more to come.

By: Dennis D. McDonald

Dennis D. McDonald — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:32:30 +0000

Jeff-

Actually, McAfee’s article is what stimulated me to work on the “cost” side of the equation originally:

http://www.ddmcd.com/enterprise_2.0_costs.html

- Dennis

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:07:22 +0000

Dennis,
Interesting post… of cours McAfee also suggested we throw out the business case when considering these projects.

http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/index.php/faculty_amcafee_v3/the_case_against_the_business_case/

Of course he wasn’t suggesting not doing business cases at all, but what he did suggest is that we should focus on the cost of acquiring capabilities by reconfiguring the denominator in such ROI equations. Well worth reading.

By: Dennis D. McDonald

Dennis D. McDonald — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:38:38 +0000

I am taking a somewaht different approach to the “enterprise 2.0″ definitional issue by playing off McAfee’s discussion related to how difficult it is to estimate “benefits” of IT.

My approach: first you need to understand costs. One relevant question, of course, is, “cost of what in relation to what?”

The following is where I wrestle with some of these issues; what I’ve tried to do is to adapt some of what I’ve learned as a management consultant working with IT departments where there is a need to track application, infrastructure, development, and support costs:

http://www.ddmcd.com/integration_costs.html

I suspect that given current trends towards different economic models that some of the “traditional” cost concepts I discuss need to be modified; I’d therefore very much appreciate comments and suggestions.

By: vinnie mirchandani

vinnie mirchandani — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:52:19 +0000

very good summary – better than Dan’s I would say…

wish I was good at rules – 2 teemagers at home – what are rules?