Why Isn't Enterprise 2.0 in the Wikipedia?

There’s no entry for Enterprise 2.0 in the Wikipedia. A flagship Web 2.0 site, the Wikipedia naturally has a heavily footnoted entry on Web 2.0. But where is Enterprise 2.0?

The obvious answer is to go to Wikipedia now and write an entry. But it’s not that easy. Wikipedia is as much about subtraction as addition; the group editors are keen on deleting superfluous information. There used to be an entry on Enterprise 2.0, but they eliminated it. More on their collective reasoning in a moment.

Another obvious answer is the curmudgeonly one: Enterprise 2.0? Aren’t we on Enterprise umpteen-dot-infinity by now? Couldn’t they learn a lesson from Business 2.0, the magazine with a title emblematic of the “history is obsolete” folly of the last burst bubble?

Fair enough. The term “Enterprise 2.0” is a portmanteau that connotes Web 2.0 for the enterprise, but the mashup, so to
speak, is a naming failure. Still, when this semantic argument is resolved, elements of Web 2.0 will remain that will likely be translated to the enterprise. What will that world look like?

Social Software

If you do look up “Enterprise 2.0” in the Wikipedia, you’ll be diverted to an entry on “enterprise social software.” There was once a standalone entry on Enterprise 2.0, but the group editors decided that it was really just a redundant subset of this bigger discussion of wikis and blogs.

The introduction of social software to the enterprise is already well underway with early adopters, from CXO blogs on public-facing sites, to wikis on customer support sites, to internal KM initiatives with both. Internally at Endeca, we’ve already seen its benefits (more on that later, too). There are some serious challenges to resolve around security and the loss of some authority before these go beyond early adopters. But conventional wisdom says this will work itself
out eventually.

But is it reductionist to say that Enterprise 2.0 is just a subset of enterprise social software? After all, Web 2.0 is about much more than just wikis and blogs. What is left over that will survive in the enterprise?

Enterprise 2.0 is not Web 2.0 for the Enterprise

The early champions of Web 2.0 resisted proffering a succinct definition for so long that heavy suspicion arose that Web 2.0 might not exist at all. Tim O’Reilly, credited with coining the term, finally gave the current short definition: “Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.”

The more popular definition comes in the less traditional form of a PowerPoint slide—widely circulated—that shows a constellation of features. Not all are present in every Web 2.0 application, but with some critical mass of features—you know it when you see it—voila, Web 2.0. The features include search, folksonomy and tagging, wikis and mashups—features that encourage participation by end-users, without control from a central authority.

That’s a look at Web 2.0 from a features point of view. You can also slice it from a platform and architecture point of view. When you hear stories about Web 2.0 companies being swallowed by Yahoo! or Google, the number of Horatio Algers in the proverbial garage is always surprisingly low. That’s because of the characteristic building blocks of these new applications. They include search engines, AJAX, Ruby on Rails, RSS and data-driven elements. You could implement some Web 2.0 features with old world architectures, but it’s onerous. What these new technologies share is the separation of computing platforms, information (i.e. content), and application logic, a low-friction factoring that makes it easy to recombine those elements into new applications.

Finally, there is an “emergent” behaviorial element when audiences converge on those features and technologies. You get the wisdom of the crowds, participation and a push into “the long tail.” Essentially, “if you build it, they will come.”

Web 2.0 has enjoyed so much vogue that many Enterprise 1.0 companies have added at least tag clouds, blogs and RSS feeds to their public-facing sites, usually chasing some nebulous business objective. Sometimes it fosters emergent behavior, and sometimes it just feels like earnest parents speaking stale slang to their teenagers. But what’s happening inside those enterprises?

Platform, Features or Behavior?

Two dominant voices in the public Enterprise 2.0 discussion come from Anant Jhingran, VP and CTO of IBM’s Information Management Division; and Andrew McAfee, a professor at Harvard Business School. In the same way that
we sliced Web 2.0 into a features and a software architecture view, they slice Enterprise 2.0 from different perspectives. Jhingran focuses on the platform and information model, and how that will change the way IT operates; while McAfee looks at features and how they will change the way workers collaborate.

McAfee defines Enterprise 2.0 as “the use of emergent social software platforms” in the enterprise. This is a contrast to the old order, where some process software guided collaboration—like email, Lotus Notes, Documentum eRoom and intranets. Some authority was needed to mediate collaboration, like corporate librarians, knowledge management directors and IT administrators. In Enterprise 2.0, emergence replaces authority. Discussions happen spontaneously, provided you seed the right environment.

To coax such emergence, McAfee uses the acronym SLATES to describe the necessary fuel: SEARCH and discovery connect workers to content. LINKS bring Web-like relationships to explore enterprise content. AUTHORSHIP is about providing low-barrier tools so users willingly contribute. TAGS let end users, rather than corporate librarians, categorize content. EXTENSIONS recommend related content. SIGNALS, like RSS feeds, alert users to changes made to content of interest to them. And SLATES are inter-dependent. For example, tags feed signals, search and extensions, and are the product
of authorship.