ing promises to take on new forms
through Web 2.0 channels.
As more Web 2.0 technologies are
deployed, and as early impact is positively assessed, additional deployment and additional productivity can
be expected. Momentum breeds momentum, and the second-order impact of the technologies will be felt as
momentum grows. While “simple is
good” today, “complex and powerful”
will define tomorrow’s deployment of
Web 2.0 and 3.0 technologies.
Web 3.0 technologies should be
anticipated. According to Wikipedia.
org, Web 3.0 technologies include:
“The emergence of ‘The Data Web’ as
structured data records are published
to the Web in reusable and remotely
queryable formats. The Data Web
enables a new level of data integra-
tion and application interoperabil-
ity, making data as openly accessible
and linkable as Web pages. The Data
Web is the first step on the path to-
ward the full Semantic Web. The full
Semantic Web will widen the scope
such that both structured data and
even what is traditionally thought of
as unstructured or semi-structured
content (such as Web pages and docu-
ments) will be widely available in RDF
and OWL semantic formats. Web site
parse templates will be used by Web
3.0 crawlers to get more precise infor-
mation about Web sites’ structured
content. Web 3.0 has also been used
to describe an evolutionary path for
the Web that leads to artificial intelli-
gence that can reason about the Web
in a quasi-human fashion.”
Next-generation Web technology
will be proactive, intelligent, contex-
tual, automated, and adaptive. While
we examined adoption of Web 2.0
technologies, imagine the analyses
of Web 3.0 technology adoption we’ll
eventually conduct. When technology
integrates seamlessly into business
processes at all levels we can expect
impact to be immediate and dra-
matic. The full potential of Web 3.0 is
years away, but the drivers of Web 2.0
technology adoption already provide
clues to how ubiquitous Web 3.0 is
likely to be.
I would like to thank the Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation for supporting
Regardless of the
reason, we found
a gap between
what was expected
and what actually
the interview and direct observation
processes; Villanova University and
the Cutter Consortium for supporting the collection of the survey data;
and A. Frank Mayadas of the Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation for his always excellent comments and insights along
1. ahn, y.-y., han, S., Kwak, h., moon, S., and jeong, h.
Semantic Web and Web 2.0: analysis of topological
characteristics of huge online social networking
services. in Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference on World Wide Web (Calgary, 2007).
2. boll, S. multitube: Where Web 2.0 and multimedia
could meet. IEEE MultiMedia 14, 1 (jan. 2007).
3. brier, j. guidelines: Web accessibility highlights and
trends. in Proceedings of the 2004 International
Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility
(manchester, england, 2004).
4. Fox, g. implications of Web 2.0 for the semantic
grid. in Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Semantics, Knowledge, and Grid (guilin,
guangxi, China 2006).
5. jaokar, a. and Fish, t. Mobile Web 2.0: The Innovator’s
Guide to Developing and Marketing Next-Generation
Wireless/Mobile Applications. Futuretext, london, aug.
6. lin, K.-j. building Web 2.0. IEEE Computer 40, 5 (may
7. lin, K.-j. Serving Web 2.0 with Soa: providing the
technology for innovation and specialization. in
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
e-Business Engineering (los angeles, 2006).
8. losinski, r. patrolling Web 2.0. THE (Technological
Horizons in Education) Journal 34.
9. mahmood, o. developing Web 2.0 applications
for semantic Web of trust. in Proceedings of the
International Conference on Information Technology,
10. majchrzak, a., Wagner, C., and yeates, d. Corporate
wiki users: results of a survey. in Proceedings of
11. mcKinsey & Co. How Businesses Are Using Web 2.0: A
McKinsey Global Survey, 2007.
12. minol, K., Spelsberg, g., Schulte, e., and morris, n.
portals, blogs and co.: the role of the internet as a
medium of science communication. Biotechnology
Journal 2, 8 (aug. 2007).
13. mori, m., miura, t., and Shioya, i. topic detection and
tracking for news Web pages. in Proceedings of the
IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web
14. orr, b. parsing the meaning of Web 2.0. ABA Banking
15. poer, C. and petrie, h. accessibility and guidelines:
accessibility in non-professional Web authoring tools:
a missed Web 2.0 opportunity? in Proceedings of the
International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web
16. tredinnick, l. Web 2.0 and business. Business
Information Review 23, 4 (2006), 228–234.
17. van der Vlist, e., ayers, d., bruchez, e., Fawcett, j., and
Vernet, a. Professional Web 2.0 Programming. Wrox
professional guides, Wrox press ltd., nov. 2006.
18. Wagner, C. and majchrzak, a. enabling customer
centricity using wikis and the wiki way. Journal of
Management Information Systems 23, 3 (2007).
19. yanbe, y., jatowt, a., nakamura, S., and tanaka, K.
Social networks: Can social bookmarking enhance
search on the Web? in Proceedings of the Conference
on Digital Libraries, 2007.
20. Zajicek, m. Web 2.0: hype or happiness? in
Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary
Conference on Web Accessibility, 2007.
Stephen J. Andriole ( firstname.lastname@example.org)
is the thomas g. labrecque professor of business in the
department of management & operations in the Villanova
School of business at Villanova University, Villanova, pa.