The Next Wave of Enterprise 2.0
Web 2.0 pioneer Ross Mayfield describes his vision for what will - and what won't - define the next few years in social software for business.
By M.R. Rangaswami, Sand Hill Group
Mar. 04, 2007
Enterprise 2.0 technology is revolutionizing the knowledge workplace. And despite debates over the name and definition, experts agree that the core concepts and business-driving power of Enterprise 2.0 will only continue to grow.
As founder and CEO of the pioneering wiki company, Socialtext, Ross Mayfield has helped make Enterprise 2.0 a reality. Since its founding in 2002, Socialtext has acquired 2,000 clients and is now working to shape the next generation of community-driven, simple-yet-powerful Enterprise 2.0 tools.
SandHill.com spoke with Ross about the evolution of "Enterprise 2.0" and why the next phase of development will be very different from that of the enterprise software industry.
SandHill.com: How did the concept of "Enterprise 2.0" originate?
Ross Mayfield: "Enterprise 2.0" has become the most overused buzzword of the moment - and that is largely our fault.
Today, the definition of "Enterprise 2.0" has been the subject of much debate. Andrew McAfee of Harvard Business School is the founder of the Enterprise 2.0 name. After observing the use of wikis and RSS at a bank in London, McAfee wrote the groundbreaking case study describing how freeform social software can be adapted for organizations.
There are actually many definitions of the term circulating in the market today. (SandHill.com's M.R. Rangaswami's definition was aimed at capturing the entire spectrum of next-generation enterprise software models, for example.)
But McAfee defines Enterprise 2.0 like this: "The use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers."
I like to say "Simple tools with simple rules yield the best results." When users use technologies in an unstructured way - email, blog posts, adding links in wikis, and so on - the information structure reveals itself.
SH.com: How is Enterprise 2.0 different from Enterprise 1.0?
RM: Enterprise 2.0 is very different from the use of traditional enterprise software. "Off-the-shelf" software cannot be used outside of the context of traditional usage. The company controls the deployment and usage of the product.
Enterprise software served a specific role - to automate business processes in a way that drives down costs. But knowledge work cannot be automated. That's why knowledge workers spend the majority of their time handling exceptions to business processes, not executing process.
Very often, this knowledge work is completed within email. Experts estimate that 90 percent of collaboration takes place via email and that 75 percent of knowledge assets are trapped inside email messages.
Capturing this institutional knowledge and leveraging it across the organization is the power of Enterprise 2.0. It is also why we talk about "freeform" as one of the core concepts of the movement.
The structure emerges as a byproduct of using the tools. In order for users to participate, there must be very few tools and they must be very simple to use. The simplicity draws users to swarm around key pieces of knowledge, tagging and posting blogs.
Enterprise 2.0 technology is designed for individual contribution and grass roots, bottom-up development. As the information structure emerges, it is aligned with the goals of the business and begins to impact productivity.
As founder and CEO of the pioneering wiki company, Socialtext, Ross Mayfield has helped make Enterprise 2.0 a reality. Since its founding in 2002, Socialtext has acquired 2,000 clients and is now working to shape the next generation of community-driven, simple-yet-powerful Enterprise 2.0 tools.
SandHill.com spoke with Ross about the evolution of "Enterprise 2.0" and why the next phase of development will be very different from that of the enterprise software industry.
SandHill.com: How did the concept of "Enterprise 2.0" originate?
Ross Mayfield: "Enterprise 2.0" has become the most overused buzzword of the moment - and that is largely our fault.
Today, the definition of "Enterprise 2.0" has been the subject of much debate. Andrew McAfee of Harvard Business School is the founder of the Enterprise 2.0 name. After observing the use of wikis and RSS at a bank in London, McAfee wrote the groundbreaking case study describing how freeform social software can be adapted for organizations.
There are actually many definitions of the term circulating in the market today. (SandHill.com's M.R. Rangaswami's definition was aimed at capturing the entire spectrum of next-generation enterprise software models, for example.)
But McAfee defines Enterprise 2.0 like this: "The use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers."
I like to say "Simple tools with simple rules yield the best results." When users use technologies in an unstructured way - email, blog posts, adding links in wikis, and so on - the information structure reveals itself.
SH.com: How is Enterprise 2.0 different from Enterprise 1.0?
RM: Enterprise 2.0 is very different from the use of traditional enterprise software. "Off-the-shelf" software cannot be used outside of the context of traditional usage. The company controls the deployment and usage of the product.
Enterprise software served a specific role - to automate business processes in a way that drives down costs. But knowledge work cannot be automated. That's why knowledge workers spend the majority of their time handling exceptions to business processes, not executing process.
Very often, this knowledge work is completed within email. Experts estimate that 90 percent of collaboration takes place via email and that 75 percent of knowledge assets are trapped inside email messages.
Capturing this institutional knowledge and leveraging it across the organization is the power of Enterprise 2.0. It is also why we talk about "freeform" as one of the core concepts of the movement.
The structure emerges as a byproduct of using the tools. In order for users to participate, there must be very few tools and they must be very simple to use. The simplicity draws users to swarm around key pieces of knowledge, tagging and posting blogs.
Enterprise 2.0 technology is designed for individual contribution and grass roots, bottom-up development. As the information structure emerges, it is aligned with the goals of the business and begins to impact productivity.
