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-