Talk:Enterprise social software

Cross link

Previous discussion, and content for potential inclusion in this article can be found at Talk:Enterprise_2.0. Additional citations can be found within Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Enterprise 2.0 (second nomination). -- Rossmay 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

More than Web

I'd suggest that Enterprise 2.0 isn't just a web toolkit. It includes live conversation tools for communication, coordination and collaboration. These may be built into web apps, browser or flash based rich apps, or rich desktop clients. They may also be blended into other Enterprise 2.0 services. Media modes: IRC, mobile SMS, text chat and instant messaging, VoIP, presence brokers, voice conferencing, video calls and video conferencing, screen sharing. When used in the workplace they are clearly enterprise social software. -- Phil Wolff 04:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise 2.0? What a load of rubbish - it doesn't mean anything, its just a buzz phrase - sheer hype by desperate men. NLB 12:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it ironic that members of the emergent Wikipedia community, such as our friend immediately above, are sometimes most negative about terms that themselves are emergent. These terms, yes, neologisms, are helpful to the community because they let us name emergent phenomena. Naming, in turn, lets us focus shared attention on these phenomena, make sense of them, join them, extend them, even fight them, if that is what one wants to do. Enterprise 2.0 was introduced by a faculty member at Harvard Business School to describe a phenomenon he wanted to call attention to--which is the consequences of loose, untyped, diy, interactive clusters and mashups and networks of web services being embraced by people who work together in enterprises. I see no reason not to embrace this new term. It calls attention on a set of interesting developments on the social and technical landscape. Web 2.0, a term--astoundingly--that has been trademarked by O'Reilly--is also a valid and valuable name. By the way, my own sense of linguistic and cognitive history is that Web 2.0 itself started out meaning nothing more than an O'Reilly conference loosely pulling together new developments on the landscape. Only later did it become a term that took on real meaning. Terms take on meaning by being picked up by users, by communities of users. Terms are given meaning by communities. The process always starts small, loose, and--let me say it, emergent. A couple of months ago my friend Joi Ito called my attention to an emergent movement among Wikipedia insiders to delist "emergent democracy." Too much of a neologism, was the objection. This movement was only overturned when someone pointed out that there is a real published book on emergent democracy available on Amazon.com. Geez, folks. How is it that the most emergent community on earth is developing policies to block the emergence of new topics and new names--and ultimately, new insights? -- Woodspoet 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this an horrible oxymoron? Enterprises are by their nature segmented and siloed to create efficiencies around tasks and leverage scale. Many enterprises use competition between silos to drive reward structures. Asking something inherently hierarchical to leverage social tools and structures is asking the impossible. The contributors will never be rewarded for contributing to the community ahead of contributing to "their job." Furthermore, if advancement in the hierarchy is a goal, it requires abandoning ones current social circles to move on. Differentiating oneself isn't a social behavior, it is a competitive and hierarchical (enterprise) behavior. I'm not convinced this will ever work. -- 192.44.136.113 (talk · contribs · logs) 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is an oxymoron (so far), but that is exactly what makes the difference between Enterprise Social Software and the term Enterprise 2.0. The latter includes the struggle between ESS - the software - and the company. An E 2.0 article would be the very place to discuss this struggle and collect and discuss the most recent research results about it. Even in the scientific community there are sometimes caveats against buzzwords or neologisms which then turn out to be serious topics. To give an example:

"Examining the efficacy of Extreme Programming (XP) [7] is a contemporary software engineering research challenge. Often, compelling empirical evidence is not available when a technology is introduced. Typically, such evidence evolves with the rate of adoption of the technology [13]. For example, strong empirical evidence of the value of the Software Capability Maturity Model (CMM) [31] came after wide initial adoption [13]. Similarly, XP is becoming increasingly popular."

— L. Williams, W. Krebs, L. Layman, and A. Antón, "Toward a Framework for Evaluating Extreme Programming," presented at Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 04), 2004

E 2.0 might be a little different in nature but it is also an "emergent phenomenon" (Woodspoet) and research has started exactly about the problems 192.44.136.113 so elaborately delineated above. It might be interesting to watch managers trying to leverage the benefits of Social Software and thereby slowly and unintendedly change the (evil capitalistic ;) nature of their enterprises. Unfortunately there is as little evidence for this as for the efficacy of Extreme Programming, but this just makes it a typical topic for empirical research. So please give us a space coined Enterprise 2.0 in this wiki to keep track of the latest findings about this development. There will be space to express your concerns like on every other page in this wiki. -- AchimBode (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In the now-deleted Enterprise 2.0 article I put in a number of links and definitions. Apparently these have been deliberately deleted by those who argue against the term. I wonder if it might be helpful for such Wikipedia Police to take some courses on the constantly changing nature of language and realize that what might be a neologism today might have a big more significance a few months down the line. To be sure I'm not a "fan" of Enterprise 2.0 - but it is a term that one finds with increasing frequency, and for that reason alone, I feel it should be at least referenced, if not deserving of a separate article. kosboot 00:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge/delete comments

Please, Do not merge or delete this article. The term, invented by Andrew McAfee from Harvard ca. one year ago, has become well-understood and wide-spread in the meantime. On the German Wikipedia it is impossible to find any information about the term. I'm glad that I found this article here. "Enterprise 2.0" is a concept of growing importance, being discussed in business, consulting and scientific environments. It's not about computing only. It's about the change of work and work organization. It describes the change of collaboration within enterprises being enabled by the use of social software. Some case studies on DrKW, IBM, Nokia etc. already exist. There's more to come, it's an emergent topic. -- Pit Hansing 11:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Completely agree that this page should not be deleted or merged. E2.0 is a growing term that now has it's own set of conferences, blogs, etc. It has began to represent the implementation of Web 2.0 social tools into the business place. -- 64.3.1.253 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Enterprise 2.0 is becoming the term for describing the effects of Web 2.0 in the world of business. I didn't like the term becoming replaced by Enterprise Social Software in the first place (I use the term Enterprise 2.0 myself a lot). I certainly would advise against merging the page with Social Computing! (Joost Bekel) 83.86.21.172 (talk · contribs · logs) 19:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• "Enterprises are by their nature segmented and siloed to create efficiencies around tasks and leverage scale" (above). Does that mean that enterprises should not try to overcome these issues? Working inside an enterprise, and helping to develop new ways of working, I was delighted to find this very useful page. I might not have read a page on social computing. Use of the 2.0 tag clearly delineates it as relating to a specific type of tool and culture. -- Camillaherrmann 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• 'Enterprise 2.0' may mean the same thing as 'social computing,' but that doesn't mean that the two 'terms' should be combined. If a user wants to look up one or the other, each should have its own entry. That the entries refer to each other is sufficient. (bstro) 64.72.65.130 (talk · contribs · logs) 17:56, 15 May 2007.
  • I absolutely agree that 'Enterprise 2.0' deserves its own entry. It is a term known to people in the business world as something far more specific than 'social computing' which is a vaguer term. Merging the two will only confuse people like my students who would expect to find a seperate entry. Furthermore this is NOT a low importance article as 'Enterprise 2.0' as a concept is growing in interest. (chrisczechrep) chrisczechrep 18:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• It is clear that the use of Enterprise Social software is an important use of technology that is only partially related to the consumer phenomenon. The importance to which these solutions bring to business definitely deserves its own entry. Organizational behavior, as well as compliance and security requirements introduce unique elements to how software is used, what constitutes a solution, and what can and can't be done. (dlavenda). -- 80.230.233.207 (talk · contribs · logs) 07:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'D suggest that it be renamed as simply Enterprise 2.0 - because thats what people are referring to it as these days anyways! - 219.64.4.24 (talk · contribs) 11:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• The term Enterprise 2.0 is highly used in organizational environments, it deserves a topic on it's own, and it's not limited to a set of tools or enhancements to the corporate intranet. There's a cultural aspect to it that is not covered by the current article, and does not correspond to the Enterprise social software term. A new Enterprise 2.0 entry should be created, and the current redirection removed.Gabouy 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the suggestion that entry be renamed Enterprise 2.0. The category refers to more that just social software in the enterprise. There are aspects of Enterprise 2.0 such as content sharing, folksonomy creation, content rating and voting and open standards that are not exclusive to social software. sdholz 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)—Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is going on here? I've not checked the article in a month, and in that time, my links have again been deleted, and much of the content of this article has also been deleted, making it a skeleton, (in order to?) receive a sub-class rating. I strongly suggest that the Wikipedia people not allow editing of this article except by those who really want to improve it. kosboot (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A mess.

This article is a mess. It certainly hasn't cleaned up much since last year. There were only a small number of refs, all related to terminology, not the focus of the article. The text keeps veering back towards justifying the authors' preferred buzzwords and away from any verifiable statements (indicated by the lack of refs, despite all the 'external links'). This is a low-grade target for link spam by people who fully believe that their favorite commercial site selling enterprise social software is the best one to present a neutral whitepaper on the subject. (An aside to those editors: if you can't provide a link to the whitepaper as a doc, not as part of a website with ads for the company's services, it is as often as not a mediocre whitepaper.)

I cleaned it up by slimming it way down. Please find useful things to say about the meme of social software in enterprise, or merge this with an article that has a clear intent to inform. If an entire year hasn't turned up one useful reference or new piece of knowledge, the current merge suggestion may not be bad. Sj

Enterprise 2.0 = The implementation of Web 2.0 concepts in the business world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.218.191 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that this this article has potential, but yes, does need cleanup as well as verification of what references it does have (which need to be made inline references) as truly being valid and supporting the article, not propaganda or adverts? Anyone willing to step up and take a first attempt? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that whenever some people try to improve it, others remove, delete and pretty much sabotage any such attempts. This does not appear to happen with any of the foreign-language Enterprise 2.0 articles and one of them (I think the German one) even questioned why there seems to be so much controversy. Having added a bit and seen it all removed, I'm content to just watch what happens in the hope that the Wikipedia Nazis will move on to other articles. -- kosboot (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the German one - and I am proud to be quoted here, thanks for mentioning, kosboot. Let's see it from the user's perspective - and isn't the user's perspective the one a wiki is bound to represent? Imagine you are new to the topic and try to look up the term - just to finally find out what they are all talking about. What is more obvious than to look up this term in Wikipedia? Then you find yourself redirected to a different term - which is not identical to Enterprise 2.0 (for a discussion with references see the German article, or just take the definition in the revised version of McAfee 2006 who defines E 2.0 as the "use of [...] social software" - which screams for a discussion of the implications of this within a hierarchical structured organization). A discussion if McAfee invented E 2.0 should of course be part of the article (supposedly not), but you can fairly pay tribute to him for coining the term for a broad public. And, yes: it's a neologism, but one that is so popular that there is an increasingly diversified scientific discussion about it - something that we should not deprive our "well-disposed" audience from. An article appropriate to the Wikipedia quality standards should comprise all this and kick it back to where it belongs: at the head of the discussion. -- AchimBode (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia but have Enterprise 2.0 implementation experience. I have successfully implemented several business capabilities that use Web 2.0 functionality. As part of an academic project, I would like to contribute to this Wiki page. But before my project team and I engage we would like to become part of the community by understanding the current issues related to Enterprise 2.0 and then propose additions to this page. Any suggestions or tips from this community is welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feroze Hanif (talk • contribs) 23:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Social Computing is not Enterprise 2.0

Adrius42 (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Social Software or Social Computing is one topic. The implications of Web 2.0 tools to Enterprises is a another topic, that has in the past been labelled by the neologism Enterprise 2.0. While the topics are not unrelated, I now do not have a place to record the components and implications of Enterprise 2.0. One of the powers of the Wikipedia is its ability to capture and record emergent neologisms. The vandalism that comes from seemingly random merging of topics, is apparently driven by individuals who do not understand the changing nature of humanity. Where can one find the place to record SLATES and FLATNESSES, they are not simply a component of Enterprise Social Software. I had not until recently understood that there are fundamentally 3 forms of human beings, Luddites, Apathetics and Innovators. From my reading of various dicussion posts the Apathetics never make their thoughts heard, leaving the Luddites and Innovators to battle it out. My sense is that the Luddites win simply based on the fact that the Innovators having posted move on, the Luddites have more patience. No, I am not willing to do battle, I came to Enterprise 2.0, which I found to be merged, to read/add/update the section on SLATES to include FLATNESSES. Further Wiki research shows that SLATES has been twice deleted by the Luddites. Thus, as an Innovator with no patience, I have recorded my frustration here, and have decided to find a more forward looking online Encyclopedia, any ideas anyone? Just don't tell the Luddites when you find it!!! I was ready with my references, but sorry Professor Andrew McAffee your work is not recognised by the Luddites.

I've moved this new entry to the bottom, to reflect its chronological succession. I also agree with it, and wonder maybe we should restart an Enterprise 2.0 article and keep it on someone's sandbox, so that it will not be deleted or merged until more rational heads prevail. -- kosboot (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise 2.0 is so much more than traditional management using Web 2.0 tools

I completely disagree with what is currently presented in the Enterprise 2.0 wiki entry. Yes, social networking tools are tools used by Enterprise 2.0 organizations, but using these tools doesn't make an organization 2.0.

Enterprise 2.0 is a radical shift in management thought and practice. Enterprise 2.0 is about agility, transparency, process alignment, flat management, distributed team, etc.

I agree. Enterprise 2.0 is NOT simply the application of web 2.0 principles to the enterprise. Read this article for a better understanding of all the implication of Enterprise 2.0.--Dejudicibus (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

what to do with this article?

• move it back to enterprise 2.0 (the current title was actually invented in one of enterprise 2.0's deletion debates and is even more of a neologism than enterprise 2.0 is itself), clean it up a bit and see if some references can be found
• delete it like was done with web 3.0, as it is nearly impossible to write an article for vaguely defined topics

suggestions :) —Ruud 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see a new Enterprise 2.0 article (there is such an article in 6 foreign language Wikipedias). But before that's done, we should discuss how to make it so airtight that the Wiki-correctors will not be able to delete it. -- kosboot (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Me too, but where? --AchimBode (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an article on the topic, but this isn't it

The overused word "social" is light on content and high on misdirection. Many would use collaboration and community instead. This article doesn't mention community, particularly, but it should. 173.210.35.198 (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion to merge those two pages is simply unprofessional rubbish

Within the scientific and professional community there is meanwhile an understanding how the terms Enterprise 2.0 and Enterprise Social Software are to be understood.

In short (pleased to add more later, including references e.g. Andrew McAfee/Harvard, Ross Dawson etc):

Enterprise 2.0 = concept of strategic application of social software within the enterprise - mostly for internal use (like intranet, corporate internal communication etc.

Enterprise social software = as the name already indicates this is software, as such it describes various software products from the range of social software. This comprises e.g. Wikis, blogs, collaboration platform software etc. It is about technology only and completely different from Enterprise 2.0. - it is rather the software, chosen to be used within the framework of E2.0.

In case there are any questions I am pleased to help. It's just that the next days I am extremely short in time - but if needed I can offer to help improve the articles listed presently. Othertwice1504 (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I would see it the other way. The current proposal is to merge the concept of a social enterprise under the article on social software. It seems like it should be the opposite. Along with cultural and leadership changes, the use of software is one methodology or concept under a social business (Enterprise 2.0), therefore the software article should be merged with the Enterprise 2.0 article. Corporate 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enterprise social software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131142014/http://www.aiim.org:80/What-is-Web-2.0.aspx to http://www.aiim.org/What-is-Web-2.0.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)