Talk:Enterprise 2.0/Archives/2014

Suggestion on definition
I think the definition part of Enterprise 2.0 is just too general. It is not specific enough. In addition, in the definition of Enterprise, it cites Enterprise 2.0 Inclusionists and Deletionists by Andrew McAfee which is just a blog post even through he created this terminology “Enterprise 2.0”. So we should edit the definition to make it more authoritative. Wuplus1992 (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that’s a fair definition. Given the description on paper Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0 was proposed as “Platforms that companies can buy or build in order to make visible the practices and outputs of their knowledge workers”. In this page, the phrase “social software” was applied to replace the terminology “Platforms”,which more specifically illustrated these platforms are software based essentially. In this paper, it was also emphasized that it was the Web 2.0, another good example of software technology milestone, which facilitated the mergence and development of Enterprise 2.0. Hahalaugh3 (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wu’s idea seems reasonable. But in my personal opinion, the definition on the wiki page is good. It cites from an article of Andrew MacAfee, who is regarded as a authority in this field and also the author of Enterprise 2.0, published in November 2009 by Harvard Business School Press. This definition covers 1)using of Web 2.0 techniques, 2)enterprise, the subject, and 3)aiming at collaboration among employees, customers, and suppliers. Stefxyx (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that is too general and not very clear for users who want to learn about the subject, which is what they came here for, I guess if the definition included some of the tools used in enterprise 2.0 for example, RSS or tagging and explained how they are implemented  to create a collaborative system. Aljasim (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I find another issue about the definition. It misses internal links. Maybe we can add internal link to "social software" in the first sentence. Wuplus1992 (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions about eliminating the [which] tag under idea generation section, also content
There is a tag [which?] in the paragraph idea generation indicates example of corporations those are using idea management system enormously is required. I know P&G are using crowdicity as idea management software. Details can be found here. I suggest nominating P&G to eliminate the [which] concern of Wikipedia system. The new sentence will be ”P&G use ….” Hahalaugh3 (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a bias sampling to conclude huge companies’ involvement of if there are only one instance of applying idea management platform. More examples should be provided. Wuplus1992 (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I see giant companies like GM and KPMG are using an idea management software named brain bank as internal idea management system. Reference website is here. Aljasim (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don’t think commercial publications are reliable unless more convincing details of how these companies take advantage of idea management software. Stefxyx (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to rephrase that to “Huge cooperations like P&G and GM are using ….” to avoid bias conclusion of idea management software’s usage situation. But these two names should be enough as references of removing the [which] tag. Wuplus1992 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It has been years since the definition of enterprise 2.0 created. I think the definition should be entitled with more intepretations from enterprises who actually use this technology. Also including essentials of any enterprise 2.0 system will make more sence from implementation perspective. Although capacitiy of each components of enterprise 2.0 is listed, these explainations can be extended by introducing more of their benefits. Lastly, it allows people to have more comprehensive understanding of enterprise 2.0 if its disadvantages and concerns are suggested. Hahalaugh3 (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree, I think I can do the definition part and make it more complete.Wuplus1992 (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can add essentials with reliable resources. However, we can add a session that introduces some collaborative tools of Enterprise 2.0 such as wikis and blogs. How do you think? Stefxyx (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Adding actual instances will be supportive. Hahalaugh3 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if we can add more to the definition. but I am going to try and add few points. Aljasim (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)