born trainers, Web 2.0 technologies
can contribute much more. What
were the respondents missing? Table
16 provides the details. While wikis
“win,” other technologies are discounted, at least for now. Meanwhile,
this is where virtual worlds might actually contribute to education and
learning, though there’s not much evidence to suggest that anyone agrees.
interpretation
What did we learn from the inter-
views, observations, and survey? Secu-
rity remains a major issue in the adop-
tion of Web 2.0 technology. Beyond
it, there’s also internal control and
prudence versus flexibility, even li-
ability. Some companies block access
to social networking sites from cor-
porate networks; others are creating
their own corporate social network-
ing sites, though we found companies
concerned about the amount of time
employees spend on them.
Table 15. Training impact data by ability.
in the area of training, have Web 2.0 technologies contributed
to your organization’s ability to…
not at all
44.7% ( 34)
Support traditional
training
modify and evolve
training content
Suppport distance
training
distribute training content 35.5% ( 27)
Very little
22.4% ( 17)
Somewhat
26.3% ( 20)
A great deal Response Total
6.6% ( 5) 76
36.8% ( 28) 18.7% ( 15) 30.3% ( 23) 12.2% ( 10)
76
34.2% ( 26) 21.1% ( 16) 27.6% ( 21) 17.1% ( 13)
76
19.7% ( 15) 35.5% ( 27)
9.2% ( 7)
76
Table 16. Web 2.0 technologies and training.
in terms of improving training, 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 rapid application
development.
other (please
specify):
Response
Percent
Response
Total
40.8% 31
21.1% 16
10.5%
8
11.8%
14.5%
9
11
3.9%
2.6%
2.6%
3
2
2
0%
0
14.5%
11
5.3%
4
28.9%
22
9.2%
7
survey data all suggest the lowest-hanging fruit is—surprise!—picked
first. Wikis, blogs, and social networks, perhaps due to their consumer-to-consumer origins, have been deployed more than the other Web 2.0
technologies. Fear of the unknown
might explain why virtual worlds,
folksonomies, crowdsourcing, and
even RSS filters have lagged deployment of the wiki/blog/social network
big three.
It also appears the survey respondents have not yet discovered the
second-level potential of Web 2.0
technologies. Mashup technology is
potentially extremely powerful but
has not yet penetrated the rapid-application-development mind-set.
Similarly, the customer-relationship-management mind-set is under-influ-enced by Web 2.0 technologies.
One important factor constraining adoption of Web 2.0 technology
is the existing applications portfolio
in companies with substantial technology budgets. In addition to the
perennial issues around asset amortization, not-invented-here constraints
restrict introduction of new applications based on new technologies. This
walled-garden effect is real in many
companies, restricting adoption of
new technologies, applications, and
even processes.
Some Web 2.0 technologies are
operational, and some are employee-and customer-facing. Figures 3 and 4
suggest a relationship between complexity and adoption and an important distinction between operational
and facing technologies. We should
assume that simple (versus complex)
facing technologies will be adopted
more quickly than complicated operational ones.
Web 2.0 technology also fuels the
broad area of information warfare.
Just as cyberbullying is a nasty trend
in the consumer world, anonymous
blogging can hurt business, images,
and brands. The number of incidents
designed to harm companies (
sometimes specifically targeted) is growing
dramatically. Companies will have
to increase their cybervigilance and
invest in countermeasures. Web 2.0
technology also empowers disgruntled employees who might want to
hurt their companies. Whistleblow-