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 c...
contributed articles   figure 1. impact metrics.                                                                          ...
contributed articlesgrowing number of participants. If                 interview Questions                                ...
contributed articles   interviews                                                                            “Blogs, wikis...
contributed articlestechnologies?                               better search and access; communi-                     ing...
contributed articles   wikis and blogs help communication,                         Big pharmaceutical company: “The       ...
contributed articlescations and architectures.”                  Table 5. Knowledge management impact data by ability.   •...
contributed articles    Table 7. Rapid application development impact data by ability.                                    ...
contributed articlesdistinction we noted between the         but less to leveraging knowledge for                       to...
contributed articles   cation development is going on these                        tionality, an assumption not support-  ...
contributed articlesmanagement is not viewed as a prime         such optimism? Because Web 2.0                            ...
contributed articles   born trainers, Web 2.0 technologies                          views, observations, and survey? Secu-...
הערך העסקי של טכנולוגיות ווב 2.0
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

הערך העסקי של טכנולוגיות ווב 2.0


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

הערך העסקי של טכנולוגיות ווב 2.0

  1. 1. 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. anDRioLEBusinessimpact ofWeb 2.0Technologies research designed to measuret H i s a r t iC l e d e sC r iB e sthe impact of the business value of wikis, blogs,podcasts, folksonomies, mashups, social networks,virtual worlds, crowdsourcing, and RSS filters—allWeb 2.0 technologies. Properly deployed, they maywell permit companies to cost-effectively increasetheir productivity and, ultimately, by Web 2.0 technologies.their competitive advantage; the re- Only limited published researchsearch reported here includes results is available today exploring the con-of interview, observation, and survey tribution of Web 2.0 technologies todata-collection from select compa-nies and industries primarily in the key insightsU.S. across six performance areas: Web 2.0 technologies can help improveknowledge management, rapid appli- collaboration and communication withincation development, customer rela- most companies.tionship management, collaboration/communication, innovation, and These technologies should be assessed to determine real impact, and a numbertraining. The results include caution, of assessment techniques, includingskepticism, and a significant contri- interviews, observations, and surveys,bution to collaboration and commu- can be used to measure impact over timenication. Wikis, blogs, and RSS filters across multiple business areas.have had the greatest impact, while These technologies can help improvevirtual worlds have had virtually none. collaboration and communication acrossSecurity remains a concern, but we multiple vertical industries, thoughfound that communication and col- many companies are cautious aboutlaboration 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
  2. 2. 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-, Forrester Research •˲ What are the best ways to exploit nessweek, and other business publica- (, IDC the technology without complicating tions cover Web 2.0 and even Web 3.0, (, and the Cutter existing infrastructures and architec- the so-called “new Net” and the next Consortium ( 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, 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
  3. 3. contributed articlesgrowing number of participants. If interview Questions •˲ What is your company’s greatestthis 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 Webogy.” 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 (, tively affect productivity?; •˲ Does business acceptance worryFacebook (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?; were developed to •˲ What’s a really bad business sce- andconnect 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 inand 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. Ourcontent; YouTube ( you avoided, and why?; conversations were designed to 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. TheyWill Web 2.0 technology be widely ment, rapid application development, assumed that companies are in theadopted because it dramatically and customer relationship management, relatively early stages of their Webcost-effectively improves corporate collaboration, communication, inno- 2.0 application deployment, are stillperformance? Will it ultimately dis- vation, and training?; learning what the technologies canappoint the business and technology •˲ What is your company’s greatest and cannot do, and are motivated toprofessionals 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. 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 69
  4. 4. contributed articles 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
  5. 5. contributed articlestechnologies? 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 beingcious 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 internallycompany: “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 theto like them, but I don’t know the real ing a training company; innovation is fastest RAD technology we’ve everimpact”; 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 separaterapid application development, cus- tools; consumerization has definitely fun from productivity; sure, everyonetomer 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 iswhere the action is; this is the realimpact we’re seeing at this point; Which Web 2.0 technologies have you deployed? Response Responseplus, there’s a lot of user acceptance (Please select all that apply.) Percent Totalof wikis, blogs, and social networks; Wikis 62.2% 61we’re getting more formal with KM Internal 48.0% 47where wikis and blogs are being used employee blogsto codify information and vet deci- External customer 20.4% 20 blogssions; only doing a little with RAD and rSS filters 32.7% 32mashups, but that will come in time;same with CRM, where we plan to use Folksonomies/ 21.4% 21 contentthe tools to better communicate with managementcustomers and suppliers; wikis are mashups 11.2% 11emerging as training tools; not too virtual worlds 1.0% 1much yet with innovation; a little wor- Internal 6.1% 6ried about crowdsourcing outside the crowdsourcingfirewall”; External 4.1% 4 Global chemicals company. “Wikis crowdsourcingand blogs have changed the way we Internal social 25.5% 25communicate: they’re easy and fast, networksand everyone can participate; KM is External social 17.3% 17fast following improved communica- networkstions and collaboration; the IT team None 22.4% 22is crazy about mashups; they are able other (please 5.1% 5 specify):to build applications very quickly forthe business, so I’d say RAD has im-proved; CRM with external customersand suppliers is behind the other ap-plications; we’re a little leery of work- Table 2. overall outside the firewall with thesetools; training is a natural; we’re us-ing wikis, blogs, and podcasts for how would you rate your expectations about the contribution that Response Responsetraining, with good results; still noth- Web 2.0 technologies would make to productivity and management? Percent Totaling with virtual worlds or crowdsourc- high 23.7% 18ing, a little too ‘out there’ for us”; medium 55.3% 42 National real estate and mortgage low 21.1% 16company. “We’re all over these tools None at all 0% 0for data and content management;RSS filters are used internally andexternally, and we tag everything for 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 71
  6. 6. contributed articles 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
  7. 7. contributed articlescations and architectures.” Table 5. Knowledge management impact data by ability. •˲ Does business acceptance worryyou? 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’tcost 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) 76business always wants to try new retrieve knowledge 9.2% (7) 13.2% (10) 55.3% (42) 22.4% (17) 76things; 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-solvingcompany: “The business is skepticalabout all the new tools IT brings tothe table, so they’ll be cautious”; Global IT company: “The businesswants only low-cost solutions”; and Table 6. Web 2.0 technologies and knowledge management. Large financial services company: “Ifit’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% 53they always find something ‘wrong’with the new stuff, always worried Internal 30.3% 23 employee blogsabout support”; External customer 10.5% 8 Global chemicals company: “No, blogsthey are pushing the stuff”; rSS filters 13.2% 10 National real estate and mortgage Folksonomies/ 18.4% 14company: “Cost always worries IT; it’s contentbeen beaten into them over time; so managementthe technology needs to be cheap to mashups 3.9% 3deploy and support”; virtual worlds 1.3% 1 Global IT company: “They will come Internal 2.6% 2around; they don’t like how easy it is crowdsourcingfor employees to just set up blogs and External 0% 0wikis, 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% 6least the potential in these tools, so I networksthink we are OK here.” We have not seen 7.9% 6 •˲ Where do you think you will be any improvementwith Web 2.0 applications in three in knowledgeyears? 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 3.0technologies”; 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 impossiblerect observations revealed consistent learned there are serious concerns to prevent business units and projecttrends 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 2.02.0 technologies, in spite of the hype, and control. tools. All companies we interviewedare entering the enterprise slowly but Technology organizations are both deployed wikis and blogs, and manydeliberately. The exception is there advancing and delaying deployment deployed RSS filters and podcasts. 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 73
  8. 8. contributed articles 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- Folksonomies/ 5.3% 4 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 We have not seen 30.3% 23 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- 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
  9. 9. contributed articlesdistinction 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 theWeb 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 littleabout 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 technologiespect 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 Totalof respondents expect the impact of mine customer data 42.1% (32) 30.3% (23) 21.1% (16) 6.6% (5) 76Web 2.0 technologies to be signifi- more effectivelycant. There is a lot of optimism out “Touch” more customers 34.2% (26) 28.9% (22) 22.4% (17) 14.5% (11) 76there. differently Table 3 suggests that most respon- Solicit customer insights 36.8% (28) 25.0% (19) 26.3% (20) 11.8% (9) 76dents expect Web 2.0 technologies to and concernsaffect knowledge management, col- Communicate 32.9% (25) 21.1% (16) 39.5% (30) 6.6% (5) 76laboration, and communications; with customers more effectivelymany also expected them to positivelyaffect customer relationship manage-ment, innovation, and training. Rapidapplication 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 happenedvs. what respondents thought wouldhappen. 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 Responsemore important than it turned out (Please select all that apply.) Percent Totalto be. Collaboration and communi- Wikis 22.4% 17cations were slightly exaggerated in Internal 15.8% 12the expectations survey data, though employee blogscollaboration and communications External customer 19.7% 15were still highly affected by Web 2.0 blogstechnologies. Expectations lagged for rSS filters 10.5% 8innovation, training, customer rela- Folksonomies/ 11.8% 9 contenttionship management, and rapid ap- managementplication development. What could mashups 6.3% 4explain the optimism that yielded to virtual worlds 0% 0reality? Cynics might point to pundit Internal 1.3% 1hype and vendor exaggeration of tech- crowdsourcingnology capabilities, something many External 3.9% 3vendors do routinely. Others might crowdsourcingpoint to naiveté about early vs. man- Internal social 9.2% 7aged-technology adoption processes. networksRegardless of the reason, we found a External social 17.1% 13gap between what was expected and networkswhat actually occurred. We have not seen 28.9% 22 any improvement Table 5 shifts to a lower level of in customeranalysis, assessing the impact of relationshipknowledge management. The four management.metrics—sharing, retrieving, orga- other (please 7.9% 6 specify):nizing, and leveraging knowledge—indicate that Web 2.0 technologiescontributed significantly to sharing,retrieving, and organizing knowledge 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 75
  10. 10. contributed articles 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 Folksonomies/ 18.4% 14 suggests that customer relationship content management figure 3. adoption and complexity. mashups 5.3% 4 virtual worlds 2.6% 2 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 We have not seen 9.2% 7 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
  11. 11. contributed articlesmanagement is not viewed as a prime such optimism? Because Web 2.0 Table 14 outlines how Web 2.0impact 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 relativeover 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 worldsexpected, 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 surveyHowever, we found a lower level of Crowdsourcing is an especially pow- respondents have not yet defined howdeployment sophistication than the erful Web 2.0 innovation technology, Web 2.0 technologies can contributeideal. 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 impactareas. The power of many Web 2.0 in the area of innovation, have Web 2.0 technologiestechnologies often involves the abil- contributed to your organization’s ability to…ity to perform primary and secondary not at all Very little Somewhat A great deal Response Totalanalyses of transactions, communica- organize innovation 27.6% (21) 22.4% (17) 39.5% (30) 10.5% (8) 76tions patterns, and customer service. Improve r&d success 36.8% (28) 15.8% (12) 35.5% (27) 11.8% (9) 76Our survey data appears to indicate Increase the number of 35.5% (27) 19.7% (15) 31.6% (24) 13.2% (10) 76that we’re seeing a toe-in-the-water innovation initiativeseffect, where companies experiment Productize innovations 39.5% (30) 14.5% (11) 38.2% (29) 7.9% (6) 76with initial deployments but stop more effectivelyshort of full commitment through to-tal exploitation of the technologies. Table 12 confirms all this, withwikis, internal blogs, and internalsocial 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 Responsebe exploited. Table 12 also suggests have contributed the most? (Please select all that apply.) Percent Totalweakness in externally focused Web Wikis 50.0% 382.0 technology deployment—surpris- Internal 30.3% 23ing in light of the technology’s capa- employee blogsbilities. We can infer from this data External customer 9.2% 7 blogsthat external applications lag internal rSS filters 9.2% 7ones and that over time significantcollaboration and communication Folksonomies/ 10.5% 8 contentapplications 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 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 77
  12. 12. contributed articles 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- not at all Very little Somewhat A great deal Response Total 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 virtual worlds 2.6% 2 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