For sometime now, the little corner of the blogsphere that writes about enterprise software has been going on about Enterprise 2.0, either in defence of its wikipedia status, or discussing what it “means.” Dion Hinchcliffe provides a useful summary of enterprise 2.0 here. I’ve written about it too, as have most of the irregulars.
Putting the wikipedia stuff aside, there are two camps, one that thinks the term should be narrow, and another camp that thinks it should be broad. For the sake of simplicity I label them Camp V and Camp A. If I have placed anyone in the wrong camp, apologies.
Camp A: (McAfee, Boothby, Mayfield+others)
Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers
Camp V:(Mirchandani , Rangaswami, +others)
Enterprise 2.0 is the synergy of a new set of technologies, development models and delivery methods that are used to develop business software and deliver it to users.
The English language is bountiful, dynamic and often beautiful. It has no committees like French has, deciding which words are allowed.
I wonder why we can’t think of two terms, one to describe the use of emergent software in an enterprise software, and the other to describe a broader shift in Enterprise technology.
I could understand it if the argument was over a really fabulous word, like cyberspace, or the Internet.
The car isn’t called horse 2.0.
The lightbulb isn’t called candle 2.0
Fax (Facsimile) isn’t called letter 2.0
If we are so innovative in the 21st century, the least we can do is to think of some new terms that inspire. Think ROBOT, Television, Velcro, Radio, even scuba (Self-Contained Underwater-Breathing Apparatus)
I propose that we bury the term, and boycott all use of 2.0 from now on (well after the office 2.0 event)
If this stuff is really that innovative then it deserves a proper word. (I’ll save my rant on dropping vowels for latr) Dust off those thinking caps, and like inventors of yore, come up with something that one day we could use in a scrabble game.
Technorati tags 2.0 Enterprise2.0
September 11, 2006 at 2:45 am
The Mustang was a very succesful Car -)
September 11, 2006 at 4:18 am
Nice post, Thomas! I like the attitude.
p.s. I thought about you a lot as I cheered my friend on at the Ironman this weekend. Lots of bikes with expensive components. What an incredible event. You ever think about one of those?
September 11, 2006 at 7:41 am
I’ll be the first to vote for a new term. How about Emergence Technology? Or Emergence Software?
I would also like to draw your attention to Ham Sandwich 2.0 complete with reflective surface!
September 11, 2006 at 6:56 pm
[...] Perhaps a better name for all things Web 2.0 (and related) is the answer. Many have compared the current Web 2.0 business boom to the original Internet boom/bust of the late 90s. Some have gone so far as to label that age of relative innocence, post hoc, Web 1.0. That’s a little silly, though I can see the draw. After all, we once made sure to have “.com” in the official name of our business back in 1998. No one is immune to silliness, it seems. Hell, sometimes I like to jump right on into to silliness and roll around a bit. But I like to claim that I knew that I was embracing the silliness before I actually did so, and that I was doing it “just for grins”. If this Web 2.0 game is in “bubble” mode, as some say it is, what event will make the existence of this bubble clear to all? Probably when VCs start throwing too much money at it (they may have done so already). Perhaps when the domain wiki.com sells for $3 million? When people start creating sites about “social shopping” (too late)? [...]
September 16, 2006 at 3:21 am
[...] Vendorprisey Thomas Otter’s views on 2.0 hype, based on the Enterprise 2.0 Wikipedia debate (tags: web2.0 innovation) [...]
October 24, 2006 at 12:53 pm
[...] I prefer Emergence and emergent to Enterprise 2.0, as I ranted recently One of the folks at SAP who walks this walk is Craig. He is one of the main guys driving SDN at SAP, and he has an interesting personal blog too, never mind all his SDN evangelising. [...]
August 13, 2007 at 9:07 am
[...] Sounds familiar? Of course, back in the 90’s this is what we called (Extended) Supply Chain. I’m not sure we need to create another label just yet. But if and when something is so significant that it deserves a new name, let’s get a bit more creative … I’m with fellow Enterprise Irregular Thomas Otter, who humorously ranted: [...]
December 15, 2007 at 1:53 pm
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
March 3, 2008 at 9:14 am
How about “Renaisance II” (of the Mainframe) since, in many ways, that is what it is!(IBM rebadged their big blue machines as “Enterprise Systems” when PC’s came along making them “Legacy” systems. An Enterprise (web) server is just another glorified name for a mainframe no matter how many blades it has! If broadband had been around in the 80s and early 90s, the PC revolution might never have emerged.