cations and architectures.”

˲ • Does business acceptance worry you?

Big pharmaceutical company: “Not at all, as long as it works and doesn’t cost too much, they will embrace it”;

Global chemicals company: “The business always wants to try new things; it’s IT that slows things down”;

National real estate and mortgage 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

Large financial services company: “If it’s free and powerful, they’ll love it.”

˲ • Does IT acceptance worry you?

Big pharmaceutical company: “Yes, they always find something ‘wrong’ with the new stuff, always worried about support”;

Global chemicals company: “No, they are pushing the stuff”;

National real estate and mortgage company: “Cost always worries IT; it’s been beaten into them over time; so the technology needs to be cheap to deploy and support”;

Global IT company: “They will come around; they don’t like how easy it is for employees to just set up blogs and wikis, often end-running them”; and “They see the business value, or at least the potential in these tools, so I think we are OK here.”

˲ • Where do you think you will be with Web 2.0 applications in three years?

Big pharmaceutical company: “Fully accepted and integrated”;

Global chemicals company: “There, but you need to ask me about Web 3.0 technologies”;

National real estate and mortgage company: “Mainstream by that time we will have figured out what to do with them”;

Global IT company: “Well-received and productive”; and

Large financial services company:

“Still a little skeptical.”

Results. The interviews and direct observations revealed consistent trends among the interview subjects (see Figure 2). We learned that Web 2.0 technologies, in spite of the hype, are entering the enterprise slowly but deliberately. The exception is there

Table 5. Knowledge management impact data by ability.

in the area of knowledge management, have Web 2.0 technologies contributed to your organization’s ability to…

not at all Very little Somewhat A great deal Response Total 3.9% ( 3) 10.5% ( 8) 51.3% ( 39) 34.2% ( 26) 76 9.2% ( 7) 13.2% ( 10) 55.3% ( 42) 22.4% ( 17) 76 6.6% ( 5) 22.4% ( 17) 52.6% ( 40) 18.4% ( 14) 76 13.2% ( 10) 31.6% ( 24) 35.5% ( 27) 19.7% ( 15) 76

Share knowledge retrieve knowledge organize knowledge leverage knowledge for problem-solving

Table 6. Web 2.0 technologies and knowledge management.

in terms of improving knowledge management, which Web 2.0 technologies have contributed the most? (Please select all that apply.) Wikis Internal employee blogs External customer blogs rSS filters Folksonomies/ content management mashups virtual worlds Internal crowdsourcing External crowdsourcing Internal social networks External social networks We have not seen any improvement in knowledge management. other (please specify):

Response
Percent
Response
Total
69.7% 53
30.3% 23

10.5%

8

13.2% 18.4%

10 14

3.9% 1.3% 2.6%

3

1

2

0%

0

14.5%

11

7.9%

6

7.9%

6

2.6%

2

are clearly applications not entirely controlled by the enterprise’s technology organization. The majority of applications are entering organizations in areas where expectations can be managed, costs are low, and tool integration and interoperability (with existing applications and infrastructures) are manageable. We also learned there are serious concerns about intellectual property, proprietary information, privacy, security, and control.

Technology organizations are both
advancing and delaying deployment
of Web 2.0 technologies. Some abso-
lutely require that Web 2.0 technolo-
gies, like all enterprise technologies,
be governed by the same processes
governing the acquisition, deploy-
ment, and support of all digital tech-
nologies. Others are loosening their
grip somewhat, primarily because
they believe it’s virtually impossible
to prevent business units and project
teams from creating wikis and blogs.