I think communities are great for the net. It creates groups, collaborations and innovations. Then you run into intellectual property roadblocks. I am all for it though.

Information technologies, however, had left their biggest impact on the productivity of American business as a whole. Talk about any industry whether it is truck or real estate to health care to manufacturing, all have incorporated new technologies that helped make doing business more efficient and affordable.

People are social, not products or companies. What does that mean for how they invest, buy, sell?

So isn’t the key distinction here for them is that the web is becoming genuinely persoanal, not ersatz marketing personal. The technologies that shape that are less important than the culture shift they permit/support.

By the way i found this site cos of the top 100 listing you were mentioned on.

I guess that I would say the Enterprise 2.0 is a branch of the Web 2.0 tree, and that their buy-in is crucial for company wide adoption and to achieve the benefits of such a system.

I would be interested in actually seeing your presentation, if you don’t mind. Not to mention some takeaways you many have on the receptiveness of different industries to internal social communities. For instance, I believe that a company like 3M would greatly benefit from an Enterprise 2.0 product. It is company with a strong core competency (thin substrate/coating manufacturing) that has many mechanical/chemical engineers widely disbursed dealing with the same engineering process issues, just using different materials. For instance, making blue painting tape in Minnesota probably has similar manufacturing issues to making red dot adhesive coated electrodes in Missouri.

Maybe that could be the next step in your research, to uncover what industries/company type would benefit most from these enterprise 2.0 products. I am not sure if you know him, but Prof. David Croson at SMU is starting to think about this. I think that both of you may have been at HBS at the same time. Could be a good resource.

I have been working to establish a large scale collaborative environment in a hierarchical business setting. We were able to compare two approaches: an open emergence model in which execution relied on a pure democratic approach coupled with self organization – (a limited/no influence model) and a controlled emergence model in which a framework was established and people contributed within the framework – (a “more” influence model). In this business setting, the controlled model generated more value for the company.

I would argue that a business operates with variety of attributes and social states many of which do not exist externally. Creating an environment that accounts for those attributes and providing guidelines for operating within that environment are at the core of what influence companies can have. Set the tone, open the doors, invite everyone in and let it rip.

What did the second slide say?

Internal wikis, blogs, tagging software, etc. within the firewall can reduce email and attached PowerPoint and Word documents, but does the “W” in Web 2.0 apply if you use the world as your research department such as Proctor and Gamble does when it posts chemical problems on the net for anyone to solve. In this case, there is some “E” and some “W.”

Web 2.0 is outer environment, is your market and is your Feedback

Enterprise 2.0 is your inner ecosystem, a tool to develop Enterprise culture, business integration, and a way to match information and knowledge all over the organisation to the places and teams that need it at every time.