Talk:Enterprise 2.0/Archives/2012

I am now officially done with Wikipedia

The lunatics (Wiki-Gatekeepers?) have taken over the asylum, I came to find out more about Enterprise 2.0 and was redirected to a sub component of Enterprise 2.0, relating to the use of Social Software in the Enterprise. What gives? Clearly it makes no sense for me to try and add the missing components as the Wiki Thought police will simply redirect them to some esoteric article that will be edited to nothing...

Where is the link to the COA?

Where are references to FLATNESSES, or the older form SLATES mentioned below...

please wake up and smell the roses Wikipians or you will likely be replaced by an Online version of Encyclopedia Britannica! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.0.96.1 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary

Mike: This article is not yet complete, but I'd like to spend some time working on it before you abolish it from Wikipedia status. Can we not add the initial sentence to Wiktionary but keep the page open for additions in the meantime? -- Mikestopforth (talk · contribs · logs) 13:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Expansion request: SLATES

{{Expand}} The actual meaning of "SLATES" needs to be explained, rather than just the expansion of the acronym. -- Beland 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Other issues I'd like to expand upon: compare with Enterprise 1.0, control dynamics, cite more intranet research, enrich the tools section with more description and case reference. -- Rossmay 20:20 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about referencing of copyrighted material.

I believe that Professor McAfee's article, where SLATES is defined, is only available for online sale and is not freely available for access online. Since this article is used as a key lead-off item in this entry, the article's content should probably be described in more detail or a link to a "legal" copy of the original should be provided if available. -- Ddmcd (talk · contribs · logs) 10:43, 12 August 2006

Tools section

Removed a link to AllTheWeb as an example of a search tool because it is not adapted for the enterprise. Would it be useful to categorize examples within the SLATES paradigm? -- Rossmay (talk · contribs · logs) 19:28, 12 August 2006

Moved text

There was a lot of text in the article that made it unbalanced; I've moved that here, for refactoring of what is most relevant back into the article.

The term was featured prominently by Andrew McAfee of Harvard Business School in the Spring 2006 MIT Sloan Management Review. His article, titled Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration, helped articulate and define the concept. This paradigm was based on field research at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, where he previously developed formal case studies on the use of Socialtext.

[http://dor.hbs.edu/fi_redirect.jhtml?facInfo=bio&facEmId=amcafee&loc=extn/

McAfee went on to define Enterprise 2.0 as the use of freeform social software within companies. 'Freeform' in this case means that the software is most or all of the following: Optional, Free of up-front workflow, Egalitarian, or indifferent to formal organizational identities and Accepting of many types of data. Freeform, or unstructured use, does not impose barriers to collaboration and enables the structure to emerge out of use.

-- Concepts -- A central concept in Professor McAfee's paper is called SLATES. This is an acronym to indicate the six components of Enterprise 2.0 technologies, this are: Search, Links, Authoring, Tags, Extensions, and Signals. McAfee's (2006) paper explains how the components of this acronym work together in building a knowledge sharing and cross unit innovating company.

While the six components are intertwined, Search and Links are directly related by McAfee. While search on the public internet benefits from a rich and evolving link structure, intranets lack this high quality metadata to inform results. With a link structure, search technologies such as Pagerank leverage diverse feedback.

Authoring enables user participation, information sharing and contributes a dense link structure. While on the public internet, personal publishing is in many cases free (you can edit this page, for example), authoring is typically restricted within an intranet. Intranets typically have an editorial process managed by a small group.

Tags, or tagging enable bottom-up contribution of metadata, a user-friendly act akin to labeling. Tags have become a common feature in enterprise wikis, weblogs and social bookmarking. As tags are contributed over time, a folksonomy emerges which augments search and affords social discovery.

Extensions, according to McAfee, take tagging one step further by automating some of the work of categorization and pattern matching. Amazon recommendations is a simple analogy, saying, "if you like that, you might find this interesting."

Signals is necessary to overcome information overload, letting users choose what information they want to subscribe to and be notified upon changes. RSS and the Atom (standard) syndication feed formats, combined with feed readers support Signals.

-- +sj+ 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment - I contributed the above text, so I will excuse myself for refactoring it back in for a while. I will point out that it was done by summarizing the actual paper by McAfee, which was the request for expansion at the top of this Discussion. - Rossmay 03:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions that remain

• When was the term first used? update: probably early 2006; currently the article says it was coined by AM.
• Who uses the term now? Within enterprises, within enterprise-wiki companies, within other enterprise-software environments, at academic conferences, among developers?
• Is there anything new here that would not be served by a redirect to a section of Web 2.0 memes?

-- +sj+ 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The first mention was in McAfee's MIT Sloan Management Review article. It served to describe a broader trend while also being a descriptive blueprint. Today it is widely used (I can and probably should dig up supporting links) within enterprises, by startups applying Web 2.0 principles and technologies to the enterprise (many more than just wiki companies), by incumbent enterprise vendors in addressing potential disruption, by bloggers and in the media. The problem with including within Web 2.0 memes is this is not a marketing trend, but a different approach to enterprise software -- and the same problem exists for including it in a section of web 2.0 or social software (an article in desperate need of more than just categorization of application types). IMHO, and is it wrong to say this is fun? -- Rossmay 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course this is fun! -- +sj + 09:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

More removed text

The following text was removed from the article for discussion here:

Stenmark argues that intranets are not similar to the internet, except in technology. They embody Taylorism management, seeking to control and measure. The primary objective of an intranet is to present management's view of corporate culture, while fulfilling the value proposition of saving time looking for information.

Imposing structure serves as a barrier to adoption and contribution. By contrast, email as an unstructured modality has provided a path of least resistance for knowledge workers and has gained widespread use. Research by IDC has been used to suggest that 90% of business collaboration occurs within email. While the productivity benefits of email are arguable given the rise of spam and information overload, the organization benefits little beyond communication.

Web 2.0 has been called an architecture of participation and user democracy , and provides tools that can be used to implement Enterprise 2.0 in organizations.

--- Knowledge management --- Improving the productivity of knowledge workers is one of the most important challenges for companies that face the transition from the industrial economy to an economy based on information and knowledge.

Some value intrinsic to both the underlying culture and frontline applications driving Web 2.0 could be employed to address the evolving role of knowledge management in the corporate context.

-- +sj + 09:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

More references needed

Currently there appears to be only a single reference that actually uses the phrase "Enterprise 2.0" itself. I would advise to try and locate a few more in order to help the AfD. A single paper is rarely notable and often features neologisms, whereas a demonstration of the uptake of the phrase would defeat both counts. -- LinaMishima 12:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who works in the area of traditional and Enterprise Web development in a Fortune 100 company, I have heard the Enterprise 2.0 term bantered around quite frequently in the last few weeks. The context is generally around internal communications and copyrighted works, so unfortunately I cannot provide those references. Unfortunately, many others will be in the same boat as well so references might be hard to come by for a while. I would say there is value in keeping Enterprise 2.0 as a separate term and encourage editors and admins to keep (but refine) the existing posting. -- Nderksen 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Two references, extracted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise 2.0 (second nomination) - (1) BusinessWeek on Enterprise 2.0 and (2) Dion Hinchcliffe on Ziff Davis on Enterprise 2.0 -- Rossmay 21:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Page redirected

Note that the page currently redirects to Enterprise social software. The article itself desperately needs more content; Ross's summary of Andrew M's original paper was a good start... but much of it was very specific to the paper's context (see above) and needs rewording so that general verifiable statements about the field, current needs, and current uses are separated from opinions and novel acronyms and suggestions. -- +sj + 04:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Reconsider Deletion in Light of Subsequent Events

Any Wikipedean would be well-advised to read Sean Silverthorne's HBS Cases: How Wikipedia Works (or Doesn't). The word is no longer just a one-man coinage; an entire conference - that had nothing to do with Andrew McAfee - was named Enterprise 2.0 (I've inserted the link and reference). That means all the attendees are now going to disseminate the phrase "Enterprise 2.0." Under such circumstances, I think it is wise to reconsider deletion (and the process by which people nominate articles for deletion). -- kosboot 20:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Harvard Business Review article

Just came across this article in the Harvard Business review relative to Wikipedia and the Enterprise 2.0 article. --KenWalker | Talk 00:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference to original article

The third footnote shows a reference to the Enterprise 2.0 article in MIT Sloan Management Review, but the link is to IEEE?? Can the link be corrected to direct to MIT Sloan Management Review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debgall (talk • contribs)

I added in that link as well, thanks. -- The Robot Champion  talk to me  01:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Coinage

In order to avoid any controversy, edit wars, and also to make this transparent. I wanted to bring up the recent blog post by Andrew McAfee. I went through the history and found that the original version of the page stated that he coined the term "Enterprise 2.0". The page has since been changed, by Jreferee. I like the improvements to the intro section and the movement of the text down to the history section. Also, I am glad that someone finally found some more references for the use of this term. I would recommend that we do our best to drop this "coinage" issue and just focus on building an article. So, is there a reason why McAfee was excluded in the history? I would like to just see him added back in, include a line "a HBS professor who helped popularize the term during a time of increased adoption of the social software tools inside the Enterprise" (cite paper) and then move on. I would hope that over time this well flesh out (someone will link the original sources) and add to the quality of the article. -- The Robot Champion  talk to me  01:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the additional references by Jreferee are really not "Enterprise 2.0" as a term / concept / phenomenon, but rather "Enterprise" as in Personal / SMB /Enterprise versions of software products and a release number that's typically 1.0, 2.0, 3.0. Nice collection of data points, but not relevant to the subject. zoli 02:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Quirky is not always cute.

What is going on here? I've always loved this Wikipedia Project, but your quirkiness may be turning toxic. Be very careful about how you proceed, or you may contribute to your own demise.

What we in the real world have discovered, as should be obvious to all, is that the tool is not the process is not the organizational culture. MediaWiki is the tool, Encyclopedic writing, editing and publishing is the process and Wikipedianism is the emergent human organizational culture.

I would suggest that the concept of 'Enterprise 2.0' has a broader descriptive domain than 'Enterprise Social Software'. E 2.0 implies the process and cultural components that any of us that have tried implementing this have banged into. The tools are dead ass simple. What's the old quote: wikiwiki is the simplest quickest way to get information on the web. The emergence of the dispersive structures is not implied by the concept of an ESS toolkit. Both E 2.0 and ESS are valid concepts.

On the other hand, writing and editing for an encyclopedia is an acquired talent. I've always loved the pejorative, 'original research'. It's one whose meaning and importance to an encyclopedia is missed by many. So, lets not make this personal and please be good mentors and hosts to folks who have good intentions as contributors. I've suspected that this endeavor could begin to try and lock out what its insiders could perceive as 'the uncivilized hordes'. Sometimes how things are mis-perceived and mis-understood are as important as the eventual, more accurate, truth.

Keep on it, though. Failure is inevitable. Success is too.

--Don Johnson (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise 2.0 is the use of Social Media capabilities to improve or enhance business process within corporations.

As a class project, my team and I would like to contribute to this page. We will start by adding sections and then add details to those sections. If anyone has any ideas then please let us know. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feroze Hanif (talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Umme Roman and Feroze Hanif are working on constructing this page. Please note that we are working on the following sections. If anyone wants to contribute to the page then we are open to other team members.

History

Common Business Capabilities

  Expertise Database

  Leadership Forums

  Document and Content quality

  Community Monitoring

  Idea generation

See also

References

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Feroze Hanif (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)