Enterprise 2.0: Yes, the hand giving will not become scanty
The beginning of the confirmation was “what they were talking about for a long time” ... some analysts - big money should come to Enterprise 2.0. The question is only what should be done so that everyone who gives this money, and investors, and businessmen would not be disappointed in their high expectations?
With this material, I continue the series of notes “Plunging into a Problem,” in which I plan to take a closer look at some aspects touched upon in my sketches for the film “The Internet at the Crossing .” In the first article in this series, we talked about the fate of programming as a profession. In this we will try to delve into the business-oriented social web. In the title of the note, I made a subtitle of the relevant thesis from my “ Afterwords to the Web 2.0 Expo ”.
Let me remind you that one of the latest Forrester studies showed that during the current five-year period, the annual costs of companies for Enterprise 2.0 will increase by an average of 43% and reach in 2012 the value of 4.6 billion dollars. Already in 2008, a company in the United States of at least 1,000 people would spend on average Enterprise $ 110 million on Enterprise 2.0. Accordingly, a sharp increase in investment in this area is expected.
')
From the Web 2.0 at Work folder
Since on Habré I posted only an annotation of my draft on Enterprise 2.0, I’ll start with its full text ...
Sketch 38. Today, everyone speaks about Enterprise 2.0 in the West. Therefore, following the logic of developments, I would not be surprised if, say, 2009 in RuNet is called the year Enterprise 2.0.
Enterprise 2.0 usually refers only to the social component of Web 2.0. At the same time, they talk about two directions : the special, that is, the corporate Internet behind the “wall” (Intranet) and the use of complex social resources for mass purposes for business purposes, for example, for marketing or recruiting.
Strictly speaking, the concept of Enterprise 2.0 as a generalized Web 2.0 business application should be expanded. It would be safe to include the SaaS business branch and mono-service social resources like LinkedIn and Plaxo, which are clearly targeted at professionals. I expect that in the end, such an extension of the concept Enterprise 2.0 will be done.
On the main direction
Today it is becoming clearer and clearer to everyone that the further development of the social Internet will go in three main directions: open platforms based on massively available resources like Facebook, mobile web and Enterprise 2.0. I dedicated the first direction to a separate cycle of notes . Mobile web, focused primarily on adolescents and young people, lies outside my area of interest. Therefore, let us now talk about the problems that Enterprise 2.0 will face (or its social component , if the concept of Enterprise 2.0 itself is expanded) at the stage of its final development.
Enterprise 2.0, unlike its “elder” brother, lies completely and unequivocally in the business-to-business (B2B) segment. At the same time, unlike B2C, the market for mass social network resources, the business model of Enterprise 2.0 is aimed not at advertising, but at selling products: goods and services. This is well understood by the whales of the IT market (Microsoft, in particular), who have moved into this area.
Enterprise 2.0 products are on-premise software or hardware / software. Their buyers are large corporations.
Enterprise 2.0 services are provided in “on demand” mode, or by subscription (on-demand / SaaS) with the same products, but already working on the servers of their manufacturers (vendors). Consumers of these services are mainly medium and relatively small companies (SME). That's exactly what Microsoft is taxiing to now with its SharePoint.
The classification of the main directions of development of Enterprise 2.0 was given by me in "... Let's define it." I already mentioned some specific resources in this area, for example, in "... What businessmen need to know ." Therefore, here I just want to remind, in general, that the main difference between Enterprise 2.0 resources from public ones is their more closed nature. If we are talking about the resources supplied “in possession”, then, as a rule, they work on the internal networks (Intranet) of companies, although in some cases they have access to the “open” Internet to work with consumers and partners.
If we talk about internal corporate tasks, then by and large the functionality and structure of resources for solving “social” tasks in business is not much different from that used in ordinary social network resources. Therefore, theoretically supplied resources can be built on the basis of the same toolkit. The difference lies more in the quality of documenting and accompanying products intended for business use.
As well as for usual social network resources, there are different mono - (blogs, forums, wikis, rss, IM, etc.) and multiservice resources. The latter are sometimes called portals. Enterprise 2.0 portals are becoming increasingly popular. MS SharePoint with some stretch is just an example of such a portal. However, to a greater extent, the resources built on the basis of Telligent and ClearSpace can claim to the proud title of “corporate social network portal”.
Collective knowledge as core capital
Collaboration and information sharing is central to Enterprise2.0. At the same time, the goal of an internal (closed) Enterprise 2.0 application in a company is the ability to effectively use the collective intelligence of all employees to increase its competitiveness in a rapidly developing market.
Understanding that collective knowledge is one of the main assets of a company is a distinctive feature of a modern manager. Therefore, such leaders, above all, consider Enterprise 2.0 as another powerful means of motivating work. They are looking for additional leverage in Enterprise 2.0 resources to help each employee be interested in contributing to the piggy bank of collective knowledge.
With regard to the goals of external use of Enterprise 2.0, this, along with accelerated feedback , connects to the company's collective intelligence of interested third-party sources.
And e-mail where?
I have a virtual friend, a business developer, as he calls himself. We discussed with him recently how the “hot” investors differ from the “cold” ones in their requirements for the business plan. And as a sample of the ideal Executive Summary for a “hot” investor, he brought me a very fresh document. It presents one project for businesses, supposedly greatly facilitating their work with e-mail.
As is known, today in most companies (in the West, at least), such internal mail is the main means of production communication between employees, and managers with employees. However, today almost no one doubts that the days of e-mail as a means of internal communication are numbered. And Enterprise2.0 should be the grave digger here.
It is believed that sooner or later, Enterprise 2.0 oust e-mail from business. Therefore, I don’t know in which market an investor works, who ventured to finance this project, but in the western market an investor (at least “hot”, even “cold”) before investing in e-mail will think very well. I, in any case, would not give a penny to such a project.
By the way, come, reach the head of the company via e-mail, yes, and not every employee will decide on this. Intracorporate blogs and forums, among other things, are ideal mechanisms for bringing their views and interests to the leadership.
I do not claim, of course, that personal production correspondence will completely die off. However, I am convinced that it will fade into the background, and very often it will use internal mail mechanisms (including IM), laid out in Enterprise 2.0 portals.
To-Do-List, or In order not to be scanty ...
On the way to the effective implementation of Enterprise 2.0 in the life of companies and organizations is still a lot of problems. Without their permission, consumers' hopes can quickly fade away. As a result, the much anticipated investment flow will also quickly become scanty. A list of some of these problems can be found in the original notes posted on the iTech Bridge blog ...
With this material, I continue the series of notes “Plunging into a Problem,” in which I plan to take a closer look at some aspects touched upon in my sketches for the film “The Internet at the Crossing .” In the first article in this series, we talked about the fate of programming as a profession. In this we will try to delve into the business-oriented social web. In the title of the note, I made a subtitle of the relevant thesis from my “ Afterwords to the Web 2.0 Expo ”.
Let me remind you that one of the latest Forrester studies showed that during the current five-year period, the annual costs of companies for Enterprise 2.0 will increase by an average of 43% and reach in 2012 the value of 4.6 billion dollars. Already in 2008, a company in the United States of at least 1,000 people would spend on average Enterprise $ 110 million on Enterprise 2.0. Accordingly, a sharp increase in investment in this area is expected.
')
From the Web 2.0 at Work folder
Since on Habré I posted only an annotation of my draft on Enterprise 2.0, I’ll start with its full text ...
Sketch 38. Today, everyone speaks about Enterprise 2.0 in the West. Therefore, following the logic of developments, I would not be surprised if, say, 2009 in RuNet is called the year Enterprise 2.0.
Enterprise 2.0 usually refers only to the social component of Web 2.0. At the same time, they talk about two directions : the special, that is, the corporate Internet behind the “wall” (Intranet) and the use of complex social resources for mass purposes for business purposes, for example, for marketing or recruiting.
Strictly speaking, the concept of Enterprise 2.0 as a generalized Web 2.0 business application should be expanded. It would be safe to include the SaaS business branch and mono-service social resources like LinkedIn and Plaxo, which are clearly targeted at professionals. I expect that in the end, such an extension of the concept Enterprise 2.0 will be done.
On the main direction
Today it is becoming clearer and clearer to everyone that the further development of the social Internet will go in three main directions: open platforms based on massively available resources like Facebook, mobile web and Enterprise 2.0. I dedicated the first direction to a separate cycle of notes . Mobile web, focused primarily on adolescents and young people, lies outside my area of interest. Therefore, let us now talk about the problems that Enterprise 2.0 will face (or its social component , if the concept of Enterprise 2.0 itself is expanded) at the stage of its final development.
Enterprise 2.0, unlike its “elder” brother, lies completely and unequivocally in the business-to-business (B2B) segment. At the same time, unlike B2C, the market for mass social network resources, the business model of Enterprise 2.0 is aimed not at advertising, but at selling products: goods and services. This is well understood by the whales of the IT market (Microsoft, in particular), who have moved into this area.
Enterprise 2.0 products are on-premise software or hardware / software. Their buyers are large corporations.
Enterprise 2.0 services are provided in “on demand” mode, or by subscription (on-demand / SaaS) with the same products, but already working on the servers of their manufacturers (vendors). Consumers of these services are mainly medium and relatively small companies (SME). That's exactly what Microsoft is taxiing to now with its SharePoint.
The classification of the main directions of development of Enterprise 2.0 was given by me in "... Let's define it." I already mentioned some specific resources in this area, for example, in "... What businessmen need to know ." Therefore, here I just want to remind, in general, that the main difference between Enterprise 2.0 resources from public ones is their more closed nature. If we are talking about the resources supplied “in possession”, then, as a rule, they work on the internal networks (Intranet) of companies, although in some cases they have access to the “open” Internet to work with consumers and partners.
If we talk about internal corporate tasks, then by and large the functionality and structure of resources for solving “social” tasks in business is not much different from that used in ordinary social network resources. Therefore, theoretically supplied resources can be built on the basis of the same toolkit. The difference lies more in the quality of documenting and accompanying products intended for business use.
As well as for usual social network resources, there are different mono - (blogs, forums, wikis, rss, IM, etc.) and multiservice resources. The latter are sometimes called portals. Enterprise 2.0 portals are becoming increasingly popular. MS SharePoint with some stretch is just an example of such a portal. However, to a greater extent, the resources built on the basis of Telligent and ClearSpace can claim to the proud title of “corporate social network portal”.
Collective knowledge as core capital
Collaboration and information sharing is central to Enterprise2.0. At the same time, the goal of an internal (closed) Enterprise 2.0 application in a company is the ability to effectively use the collective intelligence of all employees to increase its competitiveness in a rapidly developing market.
Understanding that collective knowledge is one of the main assets of a company is a distinctive feature of a modern manager. Therefore, such leaders, above all, consider Enterprise 2.0 as another powerful means of motivating work. They are looking for additional leverage in Enterprise 2.0 resources to help each employee be interested in contributing to the piggy bank of collective knowledge.
With regard to the goals of external use of Enterprise 2.0, this, along with accelerated feedback , connects to the company's collective intelligence of interested third-party sources.
And e-mail where?
I have a virtual friend, a business developer, as he calls himself. We discussed with him recently how the “hot” investors differ from the “cold” ones in their requirements for the business plan. And as a sample of the ideal Executive Summary for a “hot” investor, he brought me a very fresh document. It presents one project for businesses, supposedly greatly facilitating their work with e-mail.
As is known, today in most companies (in the West, at least), such internal mail is the main means of production communication between employees, and managers with employees. However, today almost no one doubts that the days of e-mail as a means of internal communication are numbered. And Enterprise2.0 should be the grave digger here.
It is believed that sooner or later, Enterprise 2.0 oust e-mail from business. Therefore, I don’t know in which market an investor works, who ventured to finance this project, but in the western market an investor (at least “hot”, even “cold”) before investing in e-mail will think very well. I, in any case, would not give a penny to such a project.
By the way, come, reach the head of the company via e-mail, yes, and not every employee will decide on this. Intracorporate blogs and forums, among other things, are ideal mechanisms for bringing their views and interests to the leadership.
I do not claim, of course, that personal production correspondence will completely die off. However, I am convinced that it will fade into the background, and very often it will use internal mail mechanisms (including IM), laid out in Enterprise 2.0 portals.
To-Do-List, or In order not to be scanty ...
On the way to the effective implementation of Enterprise 2.0 in the life of companies and organizations is still a lot of problems. Without their permission, consumers' hopes can quickly fade away. As a result, the much anticipated investment flow will also quickly become scanty. A list of some of these problems can be found in the original notes posted on the iTech Bridge blog ...
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/26460/
All Articles