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.