הערך העסקי של טכנולוגיות ווב 2.0

Doi:10.1145/1859204 . 1 8 5 9 2 2 5

What do wikis, blogs, podcasts, social
networks, virtual worlds, and the rest do for
corporate productivity and management?
BY STEPhEn J. anDRioLE

Business
impact of
Web 2.0
Technologies
research designed to measure
t H i s a r t iC l e d e sC r iB e s
the impact of the business value of wikis, blogs,
podcasts, folksonomies, mashups, social networks,
virtual worlds, crowdsourcing, and RSS filters—all
Web 2.0 technologies. Properly deployed, they may
well permit companies to cost-effectively increase

their productivity and, ultimately, by Web 2.0 technologies.
their competitive advantage; the re- Only limited published research
search reported here includes results is available today exploring the con-
of interview, observation, and survey tribution of Web 2.0 technologies to
data-collection from select compa-
nies and industries primarily in the key insights
U.S. across six performance areas:
Web 2.0 technologies can help improve
knowledge management, rapid appli-
collaboration and communication within
cation development, customer rela-
most companies.
tionship management, collaboration/
communication, innovation, and These technologies should be assessed
to determine real impact, and a number
training. The results include caution,
of assessment techniques, including
skepticism, and a significant contri- interviews, observations, and surveys,
bution to collaboration and commu- can be used to measure impact over time
nication. Wikis, blogs, and RSS filters across multiple business areas.
have had the greatest impact, while
These technologies can help improve
virtual worlds have had virtually none. collaboration and communication across
Security remains a concern, but we multiple vertical industries, though
found that communication and col- many companies are cautious about
laboration are generally well served deploying them.

dEC E m B E r 2 0 1 0 | vo l . 5 3 | N o. 1 2 | C o m m u n i C aT i o nS o f T hE aCm 67

contributed articles

figure 1. impact metrics. folksonomies help companies im-
prove their knowledge management?;
•˲ Can wikis be used to build “cor-
Wikis Knowledge management porate encyclopedias,” training man-
Blogs
rapid Application development
uals, and other forms of documenta-
rSS Filters
tion?;
Folksonomies Customer relationship management •˲ Can blogs be used to vet ideas
mashups
Podcasts Collaboration and Communication about markets, customers, and strate-
Crowdsourcing gies?;
Innovation
Social Networks
•˲ Can podcasts be used to docu-
virtual Worlds Training
ment products?;
•˲ Can folksonomies be used to or-
Ability to Share Knowledge ganize structured and unstructured
Ability to retrieve Knowledge
Knowledge Management
Ability to organize Knowledge content?;
Ability to leverage Knowledge •˲ Can RSS filters be used to create
content streams to improve customer
Ability to modify Applications Faster relationship management?;
Ability to develop Applications Faster •˲ Can mashups be used for rapid
Rapid Application Development
Ability to Support Applications Easier
Ability to Improve requirements modeling application development?; and
•˲ Can crowdsourcing be used to
Ability to mine Customer data Effectively stimulate innovation?
Ability to “Touch” more Customers differently
Customer Relationship Management
Ability to Solicit Customer Insights and
Research methods included:
Concerns •˲ Profile the range of Web 2.0 tech-
Ability to Communicate with Customers more nologies available to corporations;
Effectively •˲ Define “impact” across multiple

Ability to Coordinate discussions
dimensions of productivity;
Ability to reach more People Faster •˲ Collect data on the use of Web 2.0
Collaboration and Communication
Ability to Synchronize Projects and Tasks technologies and the impact areas
Ability to Audit Communications Streams through interviews, direct observa-
tion, and surveys;
Ability to Syndicate Innovation •˲ Analyze the data to identify usage
Ability to Improve Successful hit rates
Innovation patterns and impact;
Ability to Increase Innovation Initiatives
Ability to Productize more Cost-Effectively •˲ Identify correlations from the sur-
vey data among technologies and im-
Ability to Support Traditional Training pact areas; and
Ability to modify/Evolve Training Content •˲ Measure the relative impact of in-
Training
Ability to Support Asynchronous Training
Ability to Codify and distribute Training Content dividual and groups of technologies
on individual and groups of impact
areas.
(Figure 1 outlines specific impact
corporate productivity and manage- •˲ How can we use the technology to metrics.)
ment. Gartner Group (http://www. save or make money?; and Business 2.0, Fast Company, Busi-
gartner.com), Forrester Research •˲ What are the best ways to exploit nessweek, and other business publica-
(http://www.forrester.com), IDC the technology without complicating tions cover Web 2.0 and even Web 3.0,
(http://www.idc.com), and the Cutter existing infrastructures and architec- the so-called “new Net” and the next
Consortium (http://www.cutter.com) tures? digital gold rush. Is it indeed another
report that Web 2.0 technologies are Research objectives included: bubble, with Web 2.0 (then Web 3.0)
rapidly making their way into corpo- •˲ Understand which Web 2.0 tools vendors crashing and burning like
rate technology infrastructures and and techniques are most likely to their dot-com predecessors a decade
architectures. But the way they are improve corporate productivity and ago? The online trade journal Web
used and the impact they are having management; 2.0 Journal (http://www.web2journal.
have not been reported in a system- •˲ Identify how Web 2.0 tools and com) explores all sorts of Web 2.0
atic way. techniques can be used to enhance technologies, while just about every
My research posed the following corporate productivity and manage- major technology vendor has released
questions to managers and execu- ment; and multiple white papers on the promise
tives: •˲ Measure impact via collection of of Web 2.0 technologies and applica-
•˲ What good is Web 2.0 technology interview, direct observational, and tions. There are also many Web 2.0
to your company?; survey data. blogs, including Dion Hinchcliffe’s
•˲ What problems might Web 2.0 Questions addressed included: Web 2.0 (http://www.web2.socialcom-
technology solve?; •˲ Can wikis, blogs, RSS filters, and putingmagazine.com), that attract a

68 Communi CaT ionS of Th E aCm | d EC Em B Er 2 0 1 0 | vo l . 5 3 | N o. 1 2


growing number of participants. If interview Questions •˲ What is your company’s greatest
this were 1999, we’d call Web 2.0 a The questions we posed to participat- disappointment?;
“killer app” or “disruptive technol- ing companies and that defined our •˲ What excites you most about Web
ogy.” However, we’re still not sure to- observation included: 2.0 technologies?;
day about the business impact of Web •˲ How did you become aware of the •˲ What worries you most about in-
2.0 technologies, which have evolved availability of Web 2.0 technologies?; vesting in these technologies?;
on the consumer-to-consumer side of •˲ What is your understanding of •˲ Which infrastructure or architec-
the Web. Social networking sites like how Web 2.0 technologies might posi- ture issues worry you most?;
MySpace (http://www.myspace.com), tively affect productivity?; •˲ Does business acceptance worry
Facebook (http://www.facebook. •˲ What is a great Web 2.0 productiv- you?;
com), and Friendster (http://www. ity scenario for your company?; •˲ Does IT acceptance worry you?;
friendster.com) were developed to •˲ What’s a really bad business sce- and
connect individuals anxious to share nario for your company trying to ex- •˲ Where do you think your compa-
experiences, photographs, videos, ploit Web 2.0 technologies?; ny will be with Web 2.0 applications in
and other personal aspects of their •˲ Which Web 2.0 technologies have the next three years?
daily lives. These sites grew rapidly your company piloted?; These questions guided our inter-
with huge amounts of user-created •˲ Which Web 2.0 technologies have views and observation exercises. Our
content; YouTube (http://www.you- you avoided, and why?; conversations were designed to un-
tube.com) is probably the best exam- •˲ What is their impact?; derstand what companies were do-
ple of such content. •˲ How would you quantify the im- ing with Web 2.0 technologies, their
Our research reflects corporate de- pact of Web 2.0 technologies in the impact, and their alignment with ex-
ployment trends and business impact. following areas: knowledge manage- pectations, fears, and trends. They
Will Web 2.0 technology be widely ment, rapid application development, assumed that companies are in the
adopted because it dramatically and customer relationship management, relatively early stages of their Web
cost-effectively improves corporate collaboration, communication, inno- 2.0 application deployment, are still
performance? Will it ultimately dis- vation, and training?; learning what the technologies can
appoint the business and technology •˲ What is your company’s greatest and cannot do, and are motivated to
professionals it’s expected to please? success with Web 2.0 technologies?; understand their potential.

figure 2. Summary interview findings.

internally focused applications Externally focused applications
Collaboration/Communication The majority of Web 2.0 technology applications are in this Early adopters pilot Web 2.0 technologies outside the
area. viewed as “safe,” they allow companies to pilot them corporate firewall to establish alternative communication
while testing impact on security, infrastructure, total cost of and collaboration patterns with employees, suppliers,
ownership, and intellectual property. clients, and customers, permitting improved communication.
Knowledge management Km is a natural result of deployment of wikis, blogs, Km will support externally focused organizations (such as
podcasts, and rSS filters. Formal Km tools are giving way to those in the consulting and retail industries) before internally
more informal Web 2.0 tools, a trend expected to continue. focused organizations formally adopt it, slowed by concerns
over security, privacy, and intellectual property.
Rapid application Development mashup and related technology is gradually replacing more rAd tools and techniques will formalize for technology
traditional rAd technology. As more and more components, vendors and technology-driven companies and industries,
application programming interfaces, and widgets are as more and more components, applications programming
published, more rAd progress will be made. interfaces, and widgets are published by direct publishers
and third-party hosts.
Customer Relationship Crm applications are slow to absorb the extensible abilities Crm is a natural partner for Web 2.0 technologies, especially
management of Web 2.0 technologies internally and especially externally. such tools as rSS filters, podcasts, mashups and blogs.
It will take time for Web 2.0 technologies to be integrated There are countless ways to leverage Web 2.0 technologies
with and extended from existing Crm technologies. on behalf of customers and suppliers, but, due to deployment
anxiety, such applications will lag.
Training Companies increasingly use wikis, blogs, podcasts, and Third-party training and education providers will leverage
rSS filters for training and education. Their ease of use Web 2.0 technologies, integrating them into the already
and participatory nature appeal to a growing number of substantial online training and education industry. The tools
companies. relatively low cost helps. will then be sold back to customers to improve learning of
all kinds.
innovation Web 2.0 technologies have little impact on the innovation Web 2.0 tools, techniques, and especially attitudes will alter
process. There are spotty innovation applications of the innovation process in many industries by facilitating
crowdsourcing for r&d and selected applications of direct communication and collaboration among creators and
folksonomies, rSS filters, and mashups, but the area is buyers of new products and services, thus shortening the
generally not affected. innovation life cycle.



interviews “Blogs, wikis, mashups, and tagging.”
We undertook a number of interviews •˲ What would be a great Web 2.0
and conversations, combined with productivity scenario for your com-
direct observation, to determine the pany?
deployment of Web 2.0 technologies
and, more important, the impact they There are serious Big pharmaceutical company: “Very
fast, cheap but productive applica-
have on corporate productivity. Our concerns about tions”;

intellectual
conversations occurred in Q1 and Q2 Global chemicals company: “Easy to
2008 with companies in the pharma- deploy with lots of payback”;
ceutical, chemical, real estate/mort-
gage, information technology, and
property, National real estate and mortgage
company: “Fast, cheap to deploy, with
financial services industries agreeing proprietary major productivity”;
to in-depth interviews and access to
the teams implementing select Web
information, Global IT company: “Integrates well
with existing technology”; and
2.0 technologies. The interviews were privacy, security, Large financial services company:
conducted with senior technology
managers in each company. Approxi- and control. “Transparent but effective.”
•˲ What would be a really bad sce-
mately 15 senior managers participat- nario for your company?”
ed in the interviews. Big pharmaceutical company: “Lots
The five companies represented of distraction due to the technology”;
the following vertical industries: Global chemicals company: “Expen-
Company A. Big pharmaceutical sive, time-consuming deployment
company; that fails”;
Company B. Global chemicals com- National real estate and mortgage
pany; company: “Loss of control of the tech-
Company C. National real estate nology”;
and mortgage company; Global IT company: “Exposure of
Company D. Global IT company; company secrets”; and
and Large financial services company:
Company E. Large financial servic- “Everyone playing around with this
es company. stuff when they should be working.”
The questions we asked and the re- •˲ Which Web 2.0 technologies have
sponses included: you piloted?
•˲ How did you become aware of the Big pharmaceutical company: “Wi-
availability of Web 2.0 technologies?; kis and blogs”;
Big pharmaceutical company: Global chemicals company: “Wikis
“Reading; conferences, vendors, and and blogs”;
IT staff”; National real estate and mortgage
Global chemicals company: “Ven- company: “Wikis, RSS, and blogs”;
dors, IT staff, and business partners”; Global IT company: “Wikis, blogs,
National real estate and mortgage and RSS filters”; and
company: “Vendors and IT staff”; Large financial services company:
Global IT company: “Competitors, “Wikis, blogs, and mashups.”
industry publications”; and •˲ Which Web 2.0 technologies are
Large financial services company: you avoiding, and why?
“Trade publications, industry organi- Big pharmaceutical company: “Vir-
zations.” tual worlds, stupid”;
•˲ What is your understanding of the Global chemicals company: “Virtual
range of Web 2.0 technologies that worlds, no clue how they might help
might positively affect productivity?: us”;
Big pharmaceutical company: “Pri- National real-estate and mortgage
marily blogs, wikis, and podcasts”; company: “Virtual worlds and blogs,
Global chemicals company: “Blogs, way too much data to control”;
wikis, podcasts, and RSS”; Global IT company: “Blogs and
National real estate and mortgage crowdsourcing, way too much propri-
company: “Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and etary data in them”; and
RSS”; Large financial services company:
Global IT company: “Blogs, wikis, “Social networks, way too distracting
RSS, and virtual reality”; and during work.”
Large financial services company: •˲ What has been the impact of the

70 Communi CaT ionS of Th E aC m | d EC Em B Er 2 0 1 0 | vo l . 5 3 | N o. 1 2


technologies? better search and access; communi- ing their personal experience with the
Big pharmaceutical company: “Too cation and collaboration are obvious tools to the workplace without miss-
early to tell, way too early”; beneficiaries of the tool use; CRM ing a beat; KM is just sort of happen-
Global chemicals company: “Suspi- is our next application, where RSS ing on its own, repositories are being
cious of trade-offs between ‘fun’ and and other content will be provided built without a formal project to do so;
‘productivity’”; to our customers; virtual worlds are CRM is still not on our radar, though
National real-estate and mortgage not there for us yet, but we like wi- we’re doing a lot of things internally
company: “Who the hell knows?”; kis, blogs, and podcasts for training; we could provide our customers and
Global IT company: “People seem they are cheaper and faster than hir- suppliers; mashup technology is the
to like them, but I don’t know the real ing a training company; innovation is fastest RAD technology we’ve ever
impact”; and happening inside the company with seen; we’re training with wikis and
Large financial services company: crowdsourcing and blogs”; blogs, and the time savings are large”;
“We are hopeful.” Global IT company. “Communica- and
•˲ How would you quantify the im- tion and collaboration have improved Large financial services company.
pact in knowledge management, since we introduced some Web 2.0 “Impact has been spotty; I separate
rapid application development, cus- tools; consumerization has definitely fun from productivity; sure, everyone
tomer relationship management, col- taken hold here; people, especially likes these tools, but I’m not con-
laboration, communication, innova- the younger ones, are simply extend- vinced that the benefit is there yet;
tion and training?
Big pharmaceutical company. “Col- Table 1. Web 2.0 technology deployment.
laboration and communication is
where the action is; this is the real
impact we’re seeing at this point; Which Web 2.0 technologies have you deployed? Response Response
plus, there’s a lot of user acceptance (Please select all that apply.) Percent Total
of wikis, blogs, and social networks; Wikis 62.2% 61
we’re getting more formal with KM Internal 48.0% 47
where wikis and blogs are being used employee blogs
to codify information and vet deci- External customer 20.4% 20
blogs
sions; only doing a little with RAD and
rSS filters 32.7% 32
mashups, but that will come in time;
same with CRM, where we plan to use Folksonomies/ 21.4% 21
content
the tools to better communicate with management
customers and suppliers; wikis are mashups 11.2% 11
emerging as training tools; not too
virtual worlds 1.0% 1
much yet with innovation; a little wor-
Internal 6.1% 6
ried about crowdsourcing outside the crowdsourcing
firewall”; External 4.1% 4
Global chemicals company. “Wikis crowdsourcing
and blogs have changed the way we Internal social 25.5% 25
communicate: they’re easy and fast, networks
and everyone can participate; KM is External social 17.3% 17
fast following improved communica- networks

tions and collaboration; the IT team None 22.4% 22

is crazy about mashups; they are able other (please 5.1% 5
specify):
to build applications very quickly for
the business, so I’d say RAD has im-
proved; CRM with external customers
and suppliers is behind the other ap-
plications; we’re a little leery of work- Table 2. overall expectations.
ing outside the firewall with these
tools; training is a natural; we’re us-
ing wikis, blogs, and podcasts for how would you rate your expectations about the contribution that Response Response
training, with good results; still noth- Web 2.0 technologies would make to productivity and management? Percent Total
ing with virtual worlds or crowdsourc- high 23.7% 18
ing, a little too ‘out there’ for us”; medium 55.3% 42
National real estate and mortgage low 21.1% 16
company. “We’re all over these tools
None at all 0% 0
for data and content management;
RSS filters are used internally and
externally, and we tag everything for



wikis and blogs help communication, Big pharmaceutical company: “The •˲ What has been your company’s
especially collaboration, but I won- ability to record knowledge and ex- greatest disappointment?
der just how much; we have so much periences in a single format and loca- Big pharmaceutical company: “See-
to do, and even though Web 2.0 tools tion”; ing a lot of what I consider to be sen-
are pretty easy to use, they still require Global chemicals company: “In- sitive information in wikis, blogs, and
time and effort; we already have KM ternal buzz; everybody likes the new podcasts”;
tools and databases that permit us stuff”; Global chemicals company: “IT’s in-
to organize and search; we have CRM National real estate and mortgage ability to control this stuff”;
tools we’ve invested a ton of money company: “Wikis are being used for National real estate and mortgage
in; we have contractors, vendors, and training”; company: “No feedback on what it’s
partners that assist our innovation ef- Global IT company: “Using crowd- good for”;
forts; and what about the negative im- sourcing internally to solve some Global IT company: “Lack of vendor
pact on security?; we like the CRM as- tough problems”; and support”; and
pects of the technologies, but I need Large financial services company: Large financial services company:
to see empirical cost-benefit data be- “Building some RSS filters to better “The caution of IT.”
fore I declare victory.” organize information; also using folk- •˲ What excites your company most
•˲ What is your greatest success with sonomies to organize data and con- about Web 2.0 technologies?
Web 2.0 technologies? tent.” Big pharmaceutical company: “How
easy it is to deploy new, useful tech-
Table 3. Expectations by impact area. nology”;
Global chemicals company: “How
we can displace more expensive tech-
To which areas did you believe that Web 2.0 technologies would Response Response nologies for much cheaper and easi-
contribute to most? (Please select all that apply.) Percent Total er-to-use technologies;
Knowledge 78.9% 60 National real estate and mortgage
management company: “How easy it is to use the
rapid application 22.4% 17 new stuff”;
development
Global IT company: “How open it
Customer 44.7% 34
relationship is”; and
management Large financial services company:
Collaboration and 90.8% 69 “How it extends existing capabilities.”
communication •˲ What worries you the most?
Innovation 46.1% 35 Big pharmaceutical company: “Inte-
Training 43.4% 33 gration with existing technologies”;
other (please 2.6% 2 Global chemicals company: “Inte-
specify): gration with business processes”;
National real estate and mortgage
company: “Support”;
Global IT company: “Intellectual
property and privacy, a lot”; and
Table 4. actual impact data. Large financial services company:
“Security, privacy, IP, and all of the
proprietary data that fills wikis, blogs,
To which areas have Web 2.0 technologies contributed the most? Response Response crowdsourced solutions, podcasts,
(Please select all that apply.) Percent Total and everything else this technology
Knowledge 53.9% 41 makes transparent.”
management •˲ What infrastructure or architec-
rapid application 17.1% 13 ture issues worry you?
development
Big pharmaceutical company: “Se-
Customer 18.4% 14
relationship
curity, security, and security”;
management Global chemicals company: “Sup-
Collaboration and 81.6% 62 port”;
communication National real estate and mortgage
Innovation 21.1% 16 company: “Governance. Who owns
Training 7.9% 6 these tools?”;
other (please 2.6% 2 Global IT company: “Integration
specify): and interoperability with our applica-
tions”; and
Large financial services company:
“Integration with our existing appli-

72 CommuniCaT ionS of ThE aCm | d EC Em B Er 2 0 1 0 | vo l . 5 3 | N o. 1 2


cations and architectures.” Table 5. Knowledge management impact data by ability.
•˲ Does business acceptance worry
you?
Big pharmaceutical company: “Not in the area of knowledge management, have Web 2.0 technologies
contributed to your organization’s ability to…
at all, as long as it works and doesn’t
cost too much, they will embrace it”; not at all Very little Somewhat A great deal Response Total
Global chemicals company: “The Share knowledge 3.9% (3) 10.5% (8) 51.3% (39) 34.2% (26) 76
business always wants to try new retrieve knowledge 9.2% (7) 13.2% (10) 55.3% (42) 22.4% (17) 76
things; it’s IT that slows things down”; organize knowledge 6.6% (5) 22.4% (17) 52.6% (40) 18.4% (14) 76
National real estate and mortgage leverage knowledge 13.2% (10) 31.6% (24) 35.5% (27) 19.7% (15) 76
for problem-solving
company: “The business is skeptical
about all the new tools IT brings to
the table, so they’ll be cautious”;
Global IT company: “The business
wants only low-cost solutions”; and Table 6. Web 2.0 technologies and knowledge management.
Large financial services company: “If
it’s free and powerful, they’ll love it.”
•˲ Does IT acceptance worry you? in terms of improving knowledge management, which Web 2.0 Response Response
technologies have contributed the most? (Please select all that apply.) Percent Total
Big pharmaceutical company: “Yes,
Wikis 69.7% 53
they always find something ‘wrong’
with the new stuff, always worried Internal 30.3% 23
employee blogs
about support”;
External customer 10.5% 8
Global chemicals company: “No, blogs
they are pushing the stuff”; rSS filters 13.2% 10
National real estate and mortgage
Folksonomies/ 18.4% 14
company: “Cost always worries IT; it’s content
been beaten into them over time; so management
the technology needs to be cheap to mashups 3.9% 3
deploy and support”; virtual worlds 1.3% 1
Global IT company: “They will come Internal 2.6% 2
around; they don’t like how easy it is crowdsourcing
for employees to just set up blogs and External 0% 0
wikis, often end-running them”; and crowdsourcing
Large financial services company: Internal social 14.5% 11
networks
“They see the business value, or at
External social 7.9% 6
least the potential in these tools, so I
networks
think we are OK here.”
We have not seen 7.9% 6
•˲ Where do you think you will be
any improvement
with Web 2.0 applications in three in knowledge
years? management.
Big pharmaceutical company: “Fully other (please 2.6% 2
specify):
accepted and integrated”;
Global chemicals company: “There,
but you need to ask me about Web 3.0
technologies”;
National real estate and mortgage are clearly applications not entirely of Web 2.0 technologies. Some abso-
company: “Mainstream by that time controlled by the enterprise’s tech- lutely require that Web 2.0 technolo-
we will have figured out what to do nology organization. The majority gies, like all enterprise technologies,
with them”; of applications are entering organi- be governed by the same processes
Global IT company: “Well-received zations in areas where expectations governing the acquisition, deploy-
and productive”; and can be managed, costs are low, and ment, and support of all digital tech-
Large financial services company: tool integration and interoperability nologies. Others are loosening their
“Still a little skeptical.” (with existing applications and infra- grip somewhat, primarily because
Results. The interviews and di- structures) are manageable. We also they believe it’s virtually impossible
rect observations revealed consistent learned there are serious concerns to prevent business units and project
trends among the interview subjects about intellectual property, propri- teams from creating wikis and blogs.
(see Figure 2). We learned that Web etary information, privacy, security, There is also a hierarchy of Web 2.0
2.0 technologies, in spite of the hype, and control. tools. All companies we interviewed
are entering the enterprise slowly but Technology organizations are both deployed wikis and blogs, and many
deliberately. The exception is there advancing and delaying deployment deployed RSS filters and podcasts.



Table 7. Rapid application development impact data by ability. of insight into the adoption and im-
pact of Web 2.0 technologies, but
what did the survey data provide?
in the area of rapid application development, have Web 2.0 technologies
contributed to your organization’s ability to…
The Survey
not at all Very little Somewhat A great deal Response Total The survey questions focused on
modify applications faster 39.5% (30) 22.4% (17) 30.3% (23) 7.9% (6) 76 background issues, impact expecta-
develop applications 39.5% (30) 23.7% (18) 20.3% (23) 6.6% (5) 76 tions, and the impact the technolo-
faster
gies have across the six areas. The
Support applications 40.8% (31) 22.4% (17) 25.0% (19) 11.8% (9) 76
Cutter Consortium, a research and
better
consulting organization, adminis-
Improve requirements 39.5% (30) 23.7% (18) 28.9% (22) 7.9% (6) 76
modeling tered the survey to its stable of CIOs,
CTOs, CFOs, CEOs, and COOs repre-
senting more than 20 vertical indus-
tries, including small offices/home
offices, small and mid-size business-
Table 8. Web 2.0 technologies and rapid application development. es, and large global enterprises. The
five companies we interviewed also
participated in the survey. In addition
in terms of improving rapid application development, which Web 2.0 Response Response to these five companies, 93 compa-
technologies have contributed the most? (Please select all that apply.) Percent Total
nies from around the world also re-
Wikis 44.7% 34
sponded to the survey.
Internal 14.5% 11
Results. Table 1 outlines the survey
employee blogs
results, along with the deployment
External customer 9.2% 7
blogs landscape. Wikis and blogs lead the
rSS filters 6.6% 5 charge, followed by RSS filters.a Per-
haps surprising is the deployment of
content internal social networks and folkson-
management omies/content management applica-
mashups 6.6% 5 tions. No one seems to like living in
virtual worlds 1.3% 1 a virtual world. The use of external
Internal 7.9% 6 customer blogs is also interesting
crowdsourcing and suggestive of our desire to reach
External 0% 0 out to customers any way we can. We
crowdsourcing must also acknowledge that 22% in
Internal social 7.9% 6 the survey did not deploy any Web 2.0
networks
technologies at all.
External social 0% 0
networks
These results are consistent with
our interview data. The most obvious
any improvement Web 2.0 technologies, including wikis
in rapid application and blogs, are being deployed more
development. rapidly than virtual worlds, crowd-
other (please 7.9% 6 sourcing, and mashups. There’s cau-
specify):
tion around early adoption of any new
technology. Due to the freewheeling
nature of Web 2.0 technologies, even
more caution is apparent.
Fewer deployed social networks, models for, say, virtual worlds. The growth of external deployment
mashups, and folksonomies, and Finally, an important distinction is important. We’re seeing deploy-
even fewer invested in crowdsourcing separates internal applications from ment of external blogs and external
and virtual worlds. Deployment mo- their external counterparts. We no- social networks, though we’re lagging
mentum is at work, as it often is when ticed that our companies were much with deployment of external crowd-
new technologies appear. Momentum more willing to pilot Web 2.0 technol- sourcing models. This confirms the
breeds momentum, and we can ex- ogies inside than outside their fire-
pect wikis, blogs, podcasts, and RSS walls, not because they feared failure a Wikis, blogs, and folksonomies reflect the
filters to gain momentum as other or wanted to avoid tipping their hands ability to link data, information, and knowl-
Web 2.0 technologies lag. The mod- to competitors, but because of deep- edge previously unlinked (see www.linked-
data.org). Web 2.0 tools “free” users from
els for exploiting these early-adopted ening concerns about security and ac- corporate restrictions on access, content, and
technologies will thus grow faster, cess to corporate private data. transaction processing, so are both a blessing
wider, and deeper than optimization Our interviews provided one level and a curse.

74 Communi CaTionS of Th E aCm | d EC Em B Er 2 0 1 0 | vo l . 5 3 | N o. 1 2


distinction we noted between the but less to leveraging knowledge for toward improved knowledge man-
internal and external deployment of problem solving. This makes Web 2.0 agement. A surprising finding is the
Web 2.0 technologies during our in- technologies (for knowledge manage- relative lack of impact of RSS filters,
terviews (see Figure 2). ment) more descriptive than prescrip- because the essence of RSS filtering is
Table 2 outlines some expectations tive, more operational than strategic. knowledge management. Not surpris-
data. What did senior managers think The impact breakdown is even ing is that virtual worlds have little
about the contributions Web 2.0 tech- more interesting. Table 6 suggests impact on knowledge management.
nologies could make to corporate pro- that wikis, blogs, and folksonomies/ In terms of application develop-
ductivity and management? content management lead the way ment, relatively little ground-up appli-
The survey data suggests expecta-
tions were generally positive, even Table 9. Customer relationship management impact data by ability.
though most respondents (55%) ex-
pect “medium” impact, and 23% ex-
in the area of customer relationship management, have Web 2.0 technologies
pect it to be “high.” This combined contributed to your organization’s ability to…
78% response suggests the majority
not at all Very little Somewhat A great deal Response Total
of respondents expect the impact of
mine customer data 42.1% (32) 30.3% (23) 21.1% (16) 6.6% (5) 76
Web 2.0 technologies to be signifi-
more effectively
cant. There is a lot of optimism out
“Touch” more customers 34.2% (26) 28.9% (22) 22.4% (17) 14.5% (11) 76
there. differently
Table 3 suggests that most respon- Solicit customer insights 36.8% (28) 25.0% (19) 26.3% (20) 11.8% (9) 76
dents expect Web 2.0 technologies to and concerns
affect knowledge management, col- Communicate 32.9% (25) 21.1% (16) 39.5% (30) 6.6% (5) 76
laboration, and communications; with customers
more effectively
many also expected them to positively
affect customer relationship manage-
ment, innovation, and training. Rapid
application development was expect-
ed to lag relative to the other areas. Table 10. Web 2.0 technologies and customer relationship management.
Table 4 outlines what happened
vs. what respondents thought would
happen. For example, knowledge in terms of improving customer relationship management,
management was expected to be which Web 2.0 technologies have contributed the most? Response Response
more important than it turned out (Please select all that apply.) Percent Total
to be. Collaboration and communi- Wikis 22.4% 17
cations were slightly exaggerated in Internal 15.8% 12
the expectations survey data, though employee blogs
collaboration and communications External customer 19.7% 15
were still highly affected by Web 2.0 blogs

technologies. Expectations lagged for rSS filters 10.5% 8

innovation, training, customer rela- Folksonomies/ 11.8% 9
content
tionship management, and rapid ap- management
plication development. What could
mashups 6.3% 4
explain the optimism that yielded to
virtual worlds 0% 0
reality? Cynics might point to pundit
Internal 1.3% 1
hype and vendor exaggeration of tech- crowdsourcing
nology capabilities, something many External 3.9% 3
vendors do routinely. Others might crowdsourcing
point to naiveté about early vs. man- Internal social 9.2% 7
aged-technology adoption processes. networks
Regardless of the reason, we found a External social 17.1% 13
gap between what was expected and networks

what actually occurred. We have not seen 28.9% 22
any improvement
Table 5 shifts to a lower level of in customer
analysis, assessing the impact of relationship
knowledge management. The four management.
metrics—sharing, retrieving, orga- other (please 7.9% 6
specify):
nizing, and leveraging knowledge—
indicate that Web 2.0 technologies
contributed significantly to sharing,
retrieving, and organizing knowledge



cation development is going on these tionality, an assumption not support- enhancement methods and models
days. More and more companies have ed by our survey data. Table 7 suggests that do not necessarily involve Web-
adapted their processes to those em- a weak relationship across the board published application program inter-
bedded in packaged software applica- between Web 2.0 technologies and faces, components, and widgets.
tions. Also, a great deal of application application development. This find- Wikis seem to lead the pack of Web
development occurs around the cus- ing also suggests that the new Inter- 2.0 technologies and their contribu-
tomization of functionality extending net-centered applications architec- tion to rapid application develop-
from packaged applications. ture may lag as well. While more and ment (see Table 8). Wikis apparently
One would think mashup technol- more transaction processing occurs represent a suite of new applications
ogy would have a dramatic impact outside the corporate firewall, many companies are deploying. Perhaps
on the customization and extension companies are more comfortable surprising is the relatively few survey
of packaged application-based func- with older application-development respondents who view mashups as ap-
plications unto themselves or as an ap-
Table 11. Collaboration and communications impact data by ability. plications-development methodology.
Web-centric application architectures
will use mashup technology extensive-
in the area of collaboration and communication, have Web 2.0 technologies ly to create a new class of applications,
contributed to your organization’s ability to… though they appear to be more on the
not at all Very little Somewhat A great deal Response Total drawing board than in the field.
Coordinate discussions 10.5% (8) 10.5% (8) 55.3% (42) 23.7% (18) 76 Table 9 indicates that Web 2.0
reach more people faster 3.9% (3) 17.1% (13) 50.0% (38) 28.9% (22) 76 technologies have had little impact
Synchronize projects 13.2% (10) 22.4% (17) 56.6% (43) 7.9% (6) 76 on customer relationship manage-
and tasks ment, a little surprising since several
Audit communications 30.3% (23) 31.6% (24) 32.9% (25) 5.3% (4) 76 Web 2.0 technologies (such as ex-
streams ternal customer blogs, wikis, exter-
nal social networks, and RSS filters)
have great potential in this area. This
further suggests that we may not be
thinking creatively enough about how
Table 12. Web 2.0 technologies, collaboration, communication. Web 2.0 technologies can contribute
not only to customer relationship
management but to other impact ar-
in terms of improving rapid application development, which Web 2.0 Response Response eas as well.
technologies have contributed the most? (Please select all that apply.) Percent Total Table 10 suggests that wikis and ex-
Wikis 67.1% 51 ternal customer blogs contribute the
Internal 42.1% 32 most to customer relationship man-
employee blogs agement, though, again, the numbers
External customer 11.8% 9 are not compelling. Little confidence
blogs
was expressed in the use of external
rSS filters 17.1% 13
social networks. Overall, the data
suggests that customer relationship
content
management
figure 3. adoption and complexity.
mashups 5.3% 4
Internal 6.6% 5
blogs
crowdsourcing
Wikis
External 1.3% 1
crowdsourcing podcasts
Internal social 25.0% 19 Social networks
networks
adoption

External social 13.2% 10 Folksonomies
networks
rSS Filters
any improvement mashups
in rapid application
Crowdsourcing
development.
other (please 3.9% 3 Virtual Worlds
specify):
Complexity

76 Communi CaTionS of ThE aCm | d EC Em B Er 2 0 1 0 | vo l . 5 3 | N o. 1 2


management is not viewed as a prime such optimism? Because Web 2.0 Table 14 outlines how Web 2.0
impact area for Web 2.0 technologies, technology capabilities are essential- technologies contribute to innova-
though this attitude might change ly built on ubiquitous collaboration tion. Very surprising is the relative
over time. and communication. unimportance survey respondents
Table 11 shifts the focus to collabo- Table 13 turns to innovation, though ascribe to external crowdsourcing.
ration and communication, where, as there’s not much enthusiasm here, de- (Does anyone believe virtual worlds
expected, the impact is significant. spite enough progress to excite those are useful for anything?)
Wikis are the runaway hit, followed who think Web 2.0 technology can Training is the final area we as-
by blogs and external social networks. eventually contribute to innovation. sessed. Table 15 suggests that survey
However, we found a lower level of Crowdsourcing is an especially pow- respondents have not yet defined how
deployment sophistication than the erful Web 2.0 innovation technology, Web 2.0 technologies can contribute
ideal. For example, the “auditing” along with RSS filters, wikis, and blogs. to training. While wikis are natural-
of communications and collabora-
tion streams (classic business intelli- Table 13. innovation impact data by ability.
gence) lags well behind other impact
areas. The power of many Web 2.0
in the area of innovation, have Web 2.0 technologies
technologies often involves the abil- contributed to your organization’s ability to…
ity to perform primary and secondary
analyses of transactions, communica-
organize innovation 27.6% (21) 22.4% (17) 39.5% (30) 10.5% (8) 76
tions patterns, and customer service.
Improve r&d success 36.8% (28) 15.8% (12) 35.5% (27) 11.8% (9) 76
Our survey data appears to indicate
Increase the number of 35.5% (27) 19.7% (15) 31.6% (24) 13.2% (10) 76
that we’re seeing a toe-in-the-water
innovation initiatives
effect, where companies experiment
Productize innovations 39.5% (30) 14.5% (11) 38.2% (29) 7.9% (6) 76
with initial deployments but stop more effectively
short of full commitment through to-
tal exploitation of the technologies.
Table 12 confirms all this, with
wikis, internal blogs, and internal
social networks leading the way in Table 14. Web 2.0 technologies and innovation.
collaboration and communications.
While this trend is to be expected,
many other opportunities have yet to in terms of improving innovation, which Web 2.0 technologies Response Response
be exploited. Table 12 also suggests have contributed the most? (Please select all that apply.) Percent Total
weakness in externally focused Web Wikis 50.0% 38
2.0 technology deployment—surpris- Internal 30.3% 23
ing in light of the technology’s capa- employee blogs

bilities. We can infer from this data External customer 9.2% 7
blogs
that external applications lag internal
rSS filters 9.2% 7
ones and that over time significant
collaboration and communication Folksonomies/ 10.5% 8
content
applications can be expected. Why management
mashups 5.3% 4
figure 4. Segmentation of
Web 2.0 technologies. virtual worlds 1.3% 1
Internal 7.9% 6
crowdsourcing
External 3.9% 3
crowdsourcing
Internal social 17.1% 13
networks
facing
Technologies External social 5.3% 4
Blogs networks
Wikis We have not seen 26.3% 20
virtual Worlds any improvement
Crowdsourcing in customer
Social Networks relationship
management.
operational Technologies other (please 3.9% 3
Podcasts specify):
mashups
Folksonomies



born trainers, Web 2.0 technologies views, observations, and survey? Secu- survey data all suggest the lowest-
can contribute much more. What rity remains a major issue in the adop- hanging fruit is—surprise!—picked
were the respondents missing? Table tion of Web 2.0 technology. Beyond first. Wikis, blogs, and social net-
16 provides the details. While wikis it, there’s also internal control and works, perhaps due to their consum-
“win,” other technologies are dis- prudence versus flexibility, even li- er-to-consumer origins, have been de-
counted, at least for now. Meanwhile, ability. Some companies block access ployed more than the other Web 2.0
this is where virtual worlds might ac- to social networking sites from cor- technologies. Fear of the unknown
tually contribute to education and porate networks; others are creating might explain why virtual worlds,
learning, though there’s not much ev- their own corporate social network- folksonomies, crowdsourcing, and
idence to suggest that anyone agrees. ing sites, though we found companies even RSS filters have lagged deploy-
concerned about the amount of time ment of the wiki/blog/social network
interpretation employees spend on them. big three.
What did we learn from the inter- Our interview, observation, and It also appears the survey respon-
dents have not yet discovered the
Table 15. Training impact data by ability. second-level potential of Web 2.0
technologies. Mashup technology is
potentially extremely powerful but
in the area of training, have Web 2.0 technologies contributed
to your organization’s ability to… has not yet penetrated the rapid-
application-development mind-set.
Similarly, the customer-relationship-
Support traditional 44.7% (34) 22.4% (17) 26.3% (20) 6.6% (5) 76
training management mind-set is under-influ-
modify and evolve 36.8% (28) 18.7% (15) 30.3% (23) 12.2% (10) 76 enced by Web 2.0 technologies.
training content One important factor constrain-
Suppport distance 34.2% (26) 21.1% (16) 27.6% (21) 17.1% (13) 76 ing adoption of Web 2.0 technology
training is the existing applications portfolio
distribute training content 35.5% (27) 19.7% (15) 35.5% (27) 9.2% (7) 76 in companies with substantial tech-
nology budgets. In addition to the
perennial issues around asset amorti-
zation, not-invented-here constraints
Table 16. Web 2.0 technologies and training. restrict introduction of new applica-
tions based on new technologies. This
walled-garden effect is real in many
in terms of improving training, which Web 2.0 technologies Response Response companies, restricting adoption of
have contributed the most? (Please select all that apply.) Percent Total new technologies, applications, and
Wikis 40.8% 31 even processes.
Internal 21.1% 16 Some Web 2.0 technologies are
employee blogs operational, and some are employee-
External customer 10.5% 8 and customer-facing. Figures 3 and 4
blogs suggest a relationship between com-
rSS filters 11.8% 9 plexity and adoption and an impor-
Folksonomies/ 14.5% 11 tant distinction between operational
content and facing technologies. We should
management
assume that simple (versus complex)
mashups 3.9% 3
facing technologies will be adopted
more quickly than complicated op-
Internal 2.6% 2 erational ones.
crowdsourcing
Web 2.0 technology also fuels the
External 0% 0
crowdsourcing
broad area of information warfare.
Internal social 14.5% 11
Just as cyberbullying is a nasty trend
networks in the consumer world, anonymous
External social 5.3% 4 blogging can hurt business, images,
networks and brands. The number of incidents
We have not seen 28.9% 22 designed to harm companies (some-
any improvement times specifically targeted) is growing
in rapid application
development. dramatically. Companies will have
other (please 9.2% 7 to increase their cybervigilance and
specify): invest in countermeasures. Web 2.0
technology also empowers disgrun-
tled employees who might want to
hurt their companies. Whistleblow-

78 Communi CaTionS of ThE aCm | d EC Em B Er 2 0 1 0 | vo l . 5 3 | N o. 1 2

הערך העסקי של טכנולוגיות ווב 2.0

הערך העסקי של טכנולוגיות ווב 2.0

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to הערך העסקי של טכנולוגיות ווב 2.0

Similar to הערך העסקי של טכנולוגיות ווב 2.0 (20)

More from reballattoun

More from reballattoun (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

הערך העסקי של טכנולוגיות ווב 2.0