Searching for definition

Searching for definition

Summary: A recurring theme for me at the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston was defining 'Enterprise 2.


A recurring theme for me at the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston was defining 'Enterprise 2.0'as discussed in my earlier post.

Based on my conversations with various attendees, some were clearly at the conference expressly to gain clarity on this in order to help them sell initiatives in their company.

Carl Frappaolo, director of Market Intelligence at AIIM, ran a session called 'Knowledge 2.0'which

'updated the definition of KM practices and technologies for the 21st century'.

Carl has seen KM go from a circa 1995 buzzword to an ambiguous state today.

'Some say KM is dead...others point to Web 2.0 & Enterprise 2.0 as the manifestations of KM today'.

Interestingly, a large chunk of Carls' session was taken up with vigorous audience participation around the precise meaning of 'Knowledge Management' (Carl's definition: "leveraging collective wisdom and experience to accelerate innovation and responsiveness"), and a similar semantics discussion arose around defining 'Enterprise 2.0'.

The short interview above with Carl discusses that interaction.

My take away from this during the entire conference was that there is ambiguity around what E2.0 is, which is unhelpful for vendors and their potential clients alike. During Carl's session there was much discussion about Knowledge Management's fall from grace being primarily due to the 'huge number of definitions'.

Carl mentioned there is currently a 'big j curve of interest of Google searches about KM', so people are still clearly looking for answers, just as they are for 'Enterprise 2.0'.

At the conclusion of the big keynotes later that day Andrew McAfee, the Harvard professor who coined the term 'Enterprise 2.0' in 2006, called on attendees to log on to Wikipedia and edit its definition.

While this is clearly a great example of group consensus at its best, it could also lead to an open ended 'French cafe discussion' - as one of Carl's session attendees called the semantics conversation - ultimately devolving into the political football KM became and which arguably killed it off.

This is in no way a criticism of the event organizers, but it would help a broad swathe of adopters and vendors enormously to align around a consistent definition of Enterprise 2.0 at industry gatherings such as this conference.

It would be great to see the Wikipedia entry for 'Enterprise 2.0' quickly become the go-to definition we can all agree on and avoid the 'variety of different schools of thought' fate that befell 'Knowledge Management'.

Topic: CXO


Oliver Marks & Associates provides seasoned, technology agnostic independent consulting guidance to companies on effective Digital Enterprise Transformation business strategy, tactics, infrastructure & technology decisions, roll out and enduring use models and management.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • The stage 1 leveller

    The development that is seeding right now is predicted by many to be a growth phase of around 10 years. Why ten years I'm not sure, probably it links to the cycles inherent in our financial systems.

    Enterprise must adapt very quickly. Whilst they can grow internal systems organically, this will happen at a tortoise rate due to the nature of any Enterprise. They have two core problems when it comes to IT agility

    1) Staff turn up 9-5 and get paid pretty much however well they perform (and yes, we all understand that consistent under-performing *may* end in being shown the door).

    2) Anything that *may* happen needs to go through various layers of meetings, management speakization, interpretation, analysis, reports, back climbing, aged QA procedures and various other bits of nonsense that is par for the course.

    There is a powerful root system taking hold amongst the "Agiles", and has been for 2-3 years now. Some of the best of the best can perform on a computer in a way that no Enterprise could keep up with - the Enterprise will be a little self-defeating when it comes to benefiting from the new found agility that Open Systems, Open Knowledge and people Working Together brings.

    The technology incumbents will be slowly removed from the Enterprise, who will instead outsource the new development work to international teams of developers, managed by a locally based (country wise) tech company.

    But that's just the Enterprise. The real value we will be seeing is the upstart tech firms who can streak ahead in terms of performance and market acceptance (going from 0 - something, as opposed to looking over their shoulders), and implementing stuff from user feedback at a rapid pace.

    The cloud will prove to be one of the greatest developments in the last few decades.

    We will see how the power of one Monopoly has created a shed load of me-too technologist who will not be able to see, adapt, nor cope in this new phase of development. Keeping people dumbed down to keep profits up for one monopoly was a very bad idea. I think I know which country will suffer most from this particular piece of history, and it's not the UK.

    A lot of countries are going forwards, and there's positivity in the air. Some countries are going backwards and people are being protectionist rather than trying to out-develop all others. What OS do you run? Really? Oh right, well done - good for you. Is it the only one you know? Is it the only one you know really well?
  • RE: Searching for definition

    Andrew McAfee asked if we would kindly update the Wikipedia entry on Enterprise 2.0 at the conference.

    The last time the cognoscenti went to war with the wikipedians, it got ugly. I suppose we should, though, enough time has passed and there is not yet a universally understood definition.

    Are you up for that?
  • RE: Searching for definition

    We should update material at Wikipedia.During People should search with different three to four queers.
  • RE: Searching for definition

    well normally people search for definition from online dictionary it would be easy that if some one make things easier like definition in different language like top 5 languages of the world or so