Talk:Enterprise 2.0
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
see also Talk:Enterprise social software
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-24. The result of the discussion was keep. |
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-27. The result of the discussion was delete. |
Contents |
[edit] More references needed
Currently there appears to be only a single reference that actually uses the phrase "Enterprise 2.0" itself. This is a major problem with this article and is not addressed.
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 deafeat 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), Rossmay 21:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Expansion request: SLATES
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
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 13 August 2006
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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?
Since this page is now up for deletion, I am modifying this section to use generic tools instead of linking to specific vendors (For example social bookmarking, instead of del.icio.us While diverse vendor examples are helpful and can fulfill NPoV, they are best linked to on other pages. -- Rossmay Aug 13 2006
[edit] External Links
I am restoring the external links section because most of the research and continual coverage is on some dedicated weblogs. This will also source contributions at a lower threshold that can be edited appropriately into the body of the article. Rossmay Aug 13 2006
[edit] Article Visibility
Am I the only one who cannot see the article? When I follow the original link from McAfee's page I reach a "no such article" note. - Dennis McDonald (DDMcD) Aug 15, 2006
- The article was deleted because the topic is not notable enough. --Sleepyhead 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Actually the article is currently deleted for different reasons Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise 2.0. I requested a History Undelete and may request a review of the deletion itself. You could join the conversation here Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Enterprise 2.0. Rossmay 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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.
[end of quoted text]
- 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)
[edit] 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?
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 fo 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)
[edit] More removed text
...
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[1] 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 [2], and provides tools that can be used to implement Enterprise 2.0 in organizations.
[edit] 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[3].
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.
[edit] 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)
