This link has been bookmarked by 24 people . It was first bookmarked on 10 Jun 2009, by Greg Lloyd.
-
03 Jul 09
-
30 Jun 09
Andy TeddHe has a book coming out on making Enterprise 2.0 happen. You can download the first chapter http://andrewmcafee.org/blog/?p=921 but it doesn't say a lot.
-
27 Jun 09
Manmeet Singhenterprise 2.0
-
26 Jun 09
-
24 Jun 09
-
18 Jun 09
-
14 Jun 09
Christophe DeschampsExcellent article d'Andrew McAfee sur ce que les technos 2.0 apportent de plus que les précédentes aux organisations.
-
I’ve had for some time now the vague sense that the iPhone, Twitter, Gmail, Googling, Facebook, Wikipedia, Delicious, and other runaway successes are trying to tell us something about how we want to use technology in our lives and in our work, and if we enterprise technologists listen carefully we’ll hear what that something is.
-
I started jotting down some comparisons based on what I’ve seen, read, and experienced for myself, then realized that I was identifying patterns
-
I’m dividing my 2.0 vs. 1.0 comparisons into two groups. First is a set of patterns where 2.0 is just better than 1.0
-
Second is a set in which 2.0 is an alternative or addition to 1.0, not a replacement for it.
-
the primary goal of enterprise IT is not to delight users, but rather to increase the value of the company. But do these two outcomes have to be in conflict?
-
The biggest challenge will probably be to get corporate technologists (a group that includes IT departments, vendors, and consultants) to stop thinking like monopolists that can dictate tools to users with great confidence that, because of the lack of alternatives, they’ll get used.
-
I can think of four negative consequences of ignoring these patterns and continuing to act like a 1.0 enterprise technology monopolist.
-
enterprises will deploy technologies that are disliked and/or not used
-
employees will use ’stealth IT’ and any knowledge / information captured therein will not be retained by the enterprise
-
employees and customers will leave because of their frustration with poor enterprise technologies
-
the enterprise will be handicapped or crippled – less productive, innovative, collaborative, agile, ‘wise,’ foresightful, insightful, transparent, clear than it could be otherwise, or than its competitor is.
-
-
12 Jun 09
-
Susanne MörlI’m dividing my 2.0 vs. 1.0 comparisons into two groups. First is a set of patterns where 2.0 is just better than 1.0 Second is a set in which 2.0 is an alternative or addition to 1.0, not a replacement for it.
I can think of four negative consequences o -
Bertrand DuperrinI’m dividing my 2.0 vs. 1.0 comparisons into two groups. First is a set of patterns where 2.0 is just better than 1.0 – where the old should, I believe, just be replaced with the new. Second is a set in which 2.0 is an alternative or addition to 1.0, not a replacement for it. This second group of patterns, in other words, shows two alternatives, both of them valuable and viable, for how computers are used to get work done.
-
Miguel MembradoGood tables showing difference between enterprise 1.0 and enterprise 2.0 behaviors. Interesting.
-
11 Jun 09
-
raman srinivasanJune 10 2009
Comments to this post
A Pattern Language, published in 1979 by Christopher Alexander and his colleagues, was a landmark book in architecture that also became a landmark in other fields like computer science; one review called it “The decade’s best candidate for a permanently important book.”
It identifies architectural patterns at three levels - towns, buildings, and construction - that seem to work: to be both useful and livable, and to please and welcome people instead of alienating them. Alexander and his team came up with them inductively, by looking at architecture all around the world that worked and asking themselves why it did so. The authors interlink the patterns they identify, and A Pattern Language has been called “perhaps the first complete book ever written in hypertext fashion.”
It’s an amazing piece of work, and it popped into my head recently as I was trying to articulate for myself how Enterprise 2.0 work is different from Enterprise 1.0 work — from how knowledge workers used technology to get their jobs done before all these weird (and wonderful) Web 2.0 tools and communities appeared.
I’ve had for some time now the vague sense that the iPhone, Twitter, Gmail, Googling, Facebook, Wikipedia, Delicious, and other runaway successes are trying to tell us something about how we want to use technology in our lives and in our work, and if we enterprise technologists listen carefully we’ll hear what that something is.
I don’t believe that what they’re telling us is that we have to throw out all of our existing devices and applications and start enterprise IT from scratch. But we do need to throw out some tools, approaches, and philosophies, and incorporate other ones. The enterprise technologists that do the best job of this will be the ones that see their offerings succeed.
I started jotting down some comparisons based on what I’ve seen, read, and experienced for myself, then realized that I was identifying patterns (although far less rigorously and thoroughly than Alexander and hi-
echnology appears to have been designed for the user Technology appears to have been designed for someone other than the user — the developer, the boss, a lawyer, etc. Only small amounts of time and training are required to become familiar with a technology It takes significant time and training in order to become minimally competent with a technology Few steps are required to accomplish basic tasks; technology-based work is ‘frictionless’ Many steps are required to execute basic tasks; technology-based work has a great deal of friction Devices delight, pleasing the eye and the hand Devices exist to accomplish tasks and are designed only for function, not form Delays and latency are low; technology responds instantly Delays (especially at startup) can be long and latency can be high Crashes are no big deal and are easy to recover from Crashes are time-consuming and costly / catastrophic Relevant data is in the cloud, so it doesn’t matter which device the user employs Relevant data is stored locally at many devices, so it matters which device(s) the user has access to Users navigate via search Users navigate via menus and directories Work is accomplished via the browser Work is accomplished via many discrete applications Technology accurately guesses what users want, is forgiving, and makes users feel smart Users have to guess what the technology wants. The technology is unforgiving and makes users feel stupid It takes virtually no time to author (to contribute online content) and few if any approval loops exist It’s laborious to author, and many approval loops exist At its best, technology is welcoming and empowering At its worst, technology is alienating, isolating, and frustrating
-
-
10 Jun 09
-
Greg LloydAlexander and his team came up with them inductively, by looking at architecture all around the world that worked and asking themselves why it did so. The authors interlink the patterns they identify, and A Pattern Language has been called “perhaps the first complete book ever written in hypertext fashion.”
It’s an amazing piece of work, and it popped into my head recently as I was trying to articulate for myself how Enterprise 2.0 work is different from Enterprise 1.0 work — from how knowledge workers used technology to get their jobs done before all these weird (and wonderful) Web 2.0 tools and communities appeared.-
Alexander and his team came up with them inductively, by looking at architecture all around the world that worked and asking themselves why it did so. The authors interlink the patterns they identify, and A Pattern Language has been called “perhaps the first complete book ever written in hypertext fashion.”
It’s an amazing piece of work, and it popped into my head recently as I was trying to articulate for myself how Enterprise 2.0 work is different from Enterprise 1.0 work — from how knowledge workers used technology to get their jobs done before all these weird (and wonderful) Web 2.0 tools and communities appeared.
-
I started jotting down some comparisons based on what I’ve seen, read, and experienced for myself, then realized that I was identifying patterns (although far less rigorously and thoroughly than Alexander and his colleagues did). And I thought that in best 2.0 fashion I should open up this work early in the process by posting an initial set of patterns, seeing if they resonate with people, and asking for further contributions.
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.