블로그 이미지
평범하게 살고 싶은 월급쟁이 기술적인 토론 환영합니다.같이 이야기 하고 싶으시면 부담 말고 연락주세요:이메일-bwcho75골뱅이지메일 닷컴. 조대협


Archive»


Enterprise 2.0 의 정의

아키텍쳐 /Enterprise 2.0 | 2009. 6. 22. 11:40 | Posted by 조대협

Andrew McAfee 의 블로그에서 발쵀...
대충 감은 오는데, 아직 확실하게 이거다라는 느낌은 오지 않는다.
Social Application기반의 Web 2.0 개념을 Enterprise에 적용 시켜서 협업과, 협동, 소통을 가속화시켜서 기업의 효율성을 극대화 시키자는 것인데.. ROI를 어떻게 보여줄 수 있을지가 관건이 아닐까?
=

I’m not satisfied with my earlier definition of Enterprise 2.0, so let’s propose a refinement (I’m sorry if this feels a bit pedantic, but clear constructs are important to academics):

Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers.

Social software enables people to rendezvous, connect or collaborate throughcomputer-mediated communication and to form online communities. (Wikipedia’s definition).

Platforms are digital environments in which contributions and interactions are globally visible and persistent over time.

Emergent means that the software is freeform, and that it contains mechanisms to let the patterns and structure inherent in people’s interactions become visible over time.

Freeform means that the software is most or all of the following:

  • Optional
  • Free of up-front workflow
  • Egalitarian, or indifferent to formal organizational identities
  • Accepting of many types of data

Examples of Enterprise 2.0

Not examples of Enterprise 2.0

  • Wikipedia, YouTube, Flickr, MySpace, etc.  These are for individuals on the Web, not companies.  Some companies use sites like YouTube for viral and stealth marketing, but let’s explicitly put these activities outside our definition of Enterprise 2.0.
  • Most corporate Intranets today.  As discussed earlier, they’re not emergent.
  • Groupware and information portals.  Again, these tools don’t facilitate emergence, although this may be starting to change.  Groupware and portals also seem to be less freeform than the Web 2.0 technologies now starting to penetrate the firewall.
  • Email and ‘classic’ instant messaging, because transmissions aren’t globally visible or persistent.  Some messaging technologies do ensure that contributions are persistent.

How does this sound?  Is it the right definition?  Let us know.

==

원본 : http://andrewmcafee.org/blog/?p=76


본인은 구글 클라우드의 직원이며, 이 블로그에 있는 모든 글은 회사와 관계 없는 개인의 의견임을 알립니다.

댓글을 달아 주세요