Enterprise 2.0 for Dummies
The term Enterprise 2.0 was first used by Andrew McAfee Professor at Harvard Business School in 2006. And if it were not for Wikipedia, it is not a fact that I found out about it. But Wikipedia is also part of Web 2.0 and of Enterprise 2.0 itself.
The more I read about the use of social networks by business, the more surprised I read. The reason is simple: publications on this topic - the shaft. It seems that every second company not only socializes itself and the giblets of its hired “stress-resistant professionals with high learning skills and PC skills (office, Internet, office equipment”, but is constantly improving in this and related fields, looking for new methods and approaches .
And there is another impression: that the market is filled with high-quality offers, more and more of them appear and any bloody thing that proclaims from its site is a professional. Here's how on the screen from the site of the creators of one of the corporate social networks. It is clear that the homegrown foot assembly, which is now fashionable to call a "startup." Judge, in short, yourself - who wrote it. For me, this is a moron.
')
I do not even want to say to myself that I know "how it really should be." It is clear that in principle no one can know. But now I have a chance to do such a thing in reality: there is time, strength, authority and resources for this. There is constantly updated theoretical knowledge, there are several years of practice on Internet pampas, the experience of understanding menagherstva and companies as a business from the inside and I have passed my managerial path from the very bottom. From those posts that now, in the well-fed 2000s, seem to be worse for a graduate of any rotten university, than if I, dressed in crocs, carried out his trash can - I was a worker in production. And before that - a loader on a piecework contract.
Social networking for business is not something that is “used”. They can not be used - this is an obvious fact, dictated not by the fact that these fucking social networks are. But only and exclusively by the fact that these fucking social networks are part of our world now. And they are the very given, which in the 90s was the Internet in general, and in the early 2000s - electric mail. And it would be desirable for someone or not, but if a person / company / PE Ibragimpesuev / State Institution does not work on its image in the network, then this generally does not mean that this image does not exist. It’s just that one who doesn’t do it cannot influence him - that's all.
Social networks for business are not hardware, not “cloud-based capabilities with the ability to print documents from a mobile device” - users are single-gender and painful in the anus are afraid of this very possibility of printing documents from a mobile for the very reason that in any company the opportunity becomes an - and not “the identification of conflicts at the earlier stage” ... The last point generally provokes my personal conflicts: someone in the company does not know that Masha and Katya hate each other - and what ?! The one who does not know will live without this knowledge further, the one who knows will take it into account, and Masha and Katya themselves, if they put their conflicts at the forefront, will soon find themselves on the street. We learned with the help of a social network that these two smelly bitches do not tolerate each other's spirit - and what ?! Someone will reconcile them ... insanity.
Social networks for business is a tool to achieve goals and objectives, built in accordance with the external and internal PR in the company. This is marketing 2.0. Or, more conveniently, marketing 2.0. A higher-order tool that appeals to people and potential customers / employees / shareholders from several sides at the same time and constantly. Faster than traditional means, and in the future - cheaper. And quite complex in both creation and management. That's all. And as a tool of corporate slavery, the social network is impossible, because people will avoid it.
The more I read about the use of social networks by business, the more surprised I read. The reason is simple: publications on this topic - the shaft. It seems that every second company not only socializes itself and the giblets of its hired “stress-resistant professionals with high learning skills and PC skills (office, Internet, office equipment”, but is constantly improving in this and related fields, looking for new methods and approaches .
And there is another impression: that the market is filled with high-quality offers, more and more of them appear and any bloody thing that proclaims from its site is a professional. Here's how on the screen from the site of the creators of one of the corporate social networks. It is clear that the homegrown foot assembly, which is now fashionable to call a "startup." Judge, in short, yourself - who wrote it. For me, this is a moron.
')
I do not even want to say to myself that I know "how it really should be." It is clear that in principle no one can know. But now I have a chance to do such a thing in reality: there is time, strength, authority and resources for this. There is constantly updated theoretical knowledge, there are several years of practice on Internet pampas, the experience of understanding menagherstva and companies as a business from the inside and I have passed my managerial path from the very bottom. From those posts that now, in the well-fed 2000s, seem to be worse for a graduate of any rotten university, than if I, dressed in crocs, carried out his trash can - I was a worker in production. And before that - a loader on a piecework contract.
Social networking for business is not something that is “used”. They can not be used - this is an obvious fact, dictated not by the fact that these fucking social networks are. But only and exclusively by the fact that these fucking social networks are part of our world now. And they are the very given, which in the 90s was the Internet in general, and in the early 2000s - electric mail. And it would be desirable for someone or not, but if a person / company / PE Ibragimpesuev / State Institution does not work on its image in the network, then this generally does not mean that this image does not exist. It’s just that one who doesn’t do it cannot influence him - that's all.
Social networks for business are not hardware, not “cloud-based capabilities with the ability to print documents from a mobile device” - users are single-gender and painful in the anus are afraid of this very possibility of printing documents from a mobile for the very reason that in any company the opportunity becomes an - and not “the identification of conflicts at the earlier stage” ... The last point generally provokes my personal conflicts: someone in the company does not know that Masha and Katya hate each other - and what ?! The one who does not know will live without this knowledge further, the one who knows will take it into account, and Masha and Katya themselves, if they put their conflicts at the forefront, will soon find themselves on the street. We learned with the help of a social network that these two smelly bitches do not tolerate each other's spirit - and what ?! Someone will reconcile them ... insanity.
Social networks for business is a tool to achieve goals and objectives, built in accordance with the external and internal PR in the company. This is marketing 2.0. Or, more conveniently, marketing 2.0. A higher-order tool that appeals to people and potential customers / employees / shareholders from several sides at the same time and constantly. Faster than traditional means, and in the future - cheaper. And quite complex in both creation and management. That's all. And as a tool of corporate slavery, the social network is impossible, because people will avoid it.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/147639/
All Articles