Comments on: I STILL Agree with Tom. And yet…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:52:00 +0000

Thank you for the article. But I want to know more about Enterprise 2.0. How can I get benefit from this software?

By: lawyerswingham

lawyerswingham — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:52:48 +0000

Thank you for the article. But I want to know more about Enterprise 2.0. How can I get benefit from this software?

By: pixbook

pixbook — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:55:34 +0000

This is a thoughtful conversation with some great points on the barriers to adoption in a large enterprise.

Ways to make money

By: oil paintings for sale

oil paintings for sale — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:12:59 +0000

Enterprise 2.0 just like Web 2.0 requires that the techniques included in this bundle of great stuff must be mastered and used for the benefit of all. It must be used for the good of everybody and not destroying other peopleÃ¢Â€Â™s business in order to uplift yours. It is enough that this is very applicable to big enterprises thus it may be also applicable to SMEs.

By: personalized business gift

personalized business gift — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:27:39 +0000

LetÂ’s not have one general conclusion about the potentials of Enterprise 2.0 or Intranet. ItÂ’s not all about negative outcomes. For Example, Motorola’s initiative, which it calls “Intranet 2.0,” has been wildly successful, with 70,000 people using it every day, including partners. Redshaw on the other hand admits that Enterprise 2.0 technologies don’t exactly make for easy ROI calculations. The team creating an Enterprise 2.0 platform for a company is key to Redshaw. The team suggests that the smaller the team, the better.

By: chainsaw

chainsaw — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:19:07 +0000

I’ll be honest, this is the first time I’ve read about Enterprise 2.0 but I suspect it is strongly linked to the web 2.0 philosophy (a philosophy is more like what it is now.) If this is the case, I have to agree with you Â– it is indeed totally over rated and don’t think it’ll help to change the face of business and the world as much as people would like. The internet itself has certainly done that. Web 2.0 or Enterprise 2.0 is more like a philosophy (in my opinion) that has actually COME from the web and what the web brings (community, simplicity, ease of use, accessibility, information etc.)

By: hotindir

hotindir — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:05:29 +0000

This is a thoughtful conversation with some great points on the barriers to adoption in a large enterprise. However, I think Andrew is giving too much weight to TomÂ’s arguments in this post.

By: cellotin

cellotin — Fri, 25 May 2007 20:51:39 +0000

Methinks thou dost agree too much, Andrew. What do you really think?

By: Stan Garfield

Stan Garfield — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:47:52 +0000

Hi, Andrew.

I linked to the Bill Ives post on this subject from http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/garfield/archive/2007/05/23/3473.html

Regards,
Stan

By: Erik Huddleston

Erik Huddleston — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:32:08 +0000

This is a thoughtful conversation with some great points on the barriers to adoption in a large enterprise. However, I think Andrew is giving too much weight to Tom’s arguments in this post.

I believe there is a fundamental assumption that is flawed in the discussion. I don’t think adoption in large enterprises is a “bottoms up” problem. I certainly believe that Tom’s objections will limit the growth of Enterprise 2.0 via that model. Instead, my view is that adoption will be “bottoms out” instead. In other words, collaboration with partners, customers, and professional networks vs. coworkers. I’ve written up more extensive thoughts on this here:

http://2glue.typepad.com/2glue_corporate_blog/2007/04/enterprise_20_a.html