Like other 2.0 terms (learning, school, web, education), enterprise 2.0 is a catch-all term expressing something foundational is changing in how organizations function. Jim McGee presents a compilation of important articles relating to this foundation enterprise-level change. My ongoing resistance to the “2.0″ tag is that it sets up each subsequent small iteration as “3.0, 4.0″ and so on. It’s great for consultants and pundits. But rather irritating for actual practitioners in, or new comers to, a field. While many of my presentations over the last few years have been directed to more technologically aware audiences, the last few have been directed to educators or trainers who are not necessarily involved with technology. Terms like wikis, blogs, podcasts, and web 2.0 are absolutely foreign. They do, however, recognize something is changing. They just aren’t as burdened with buzzwords as many of us are to describe the phenomenon. Our terminology and vision for change needs to be revisited if we expect our message to be heard.
-
‹ Home
Contents
-
Categories
-
Tags
Adoption Articles Blogging Classification/Ontologies Collaboration Community Connectivism Content Content Management Copyright/IP/DRM Design Elearning Evaluation/Assessment/ROI Games/Simulations Information Architecture Innovation Instructional Design Knowledge Management Learning Learning Objects Legal LMS Media Networks Open Source Podcasting Random Thoughts Research Resources ROI Search Semantic Web SNA Social Standards Storytelling Teaching Technology Theories Tools Trends Usability Wiki Wireless/PDAs XML
-
Archives
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
Blogroll
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
4 Comments
I, too, hate the version numbering convention that seems to have infected the pundit/consulting class. Even as a short hand it’s misleading and confusing. Given that the ‘lazy’ answer appears biased in favor of these labels, what have you found helpful in talking about what is changing and what to make of it?
Why the resistance to “2.0″? The computer industry has long used numbering to denote product changes/upgrades. Why not apply these long used conventions to the change in the Internet? So we should dumb down the terminology?
Hi Jim – you raise an important question about alternative terminology to web 2.0. While I lament the poor value of “2.0″, I haven’t a suitable alternative. The concept of web 2.0 has value in that it indicates a break from traditional approaches and it provides an easy term to broadly capture many of the changes we are experiencing. But, as a hype term, its use indicates that previous versions (i.e. enterprise, education, and learning 1.0) aren’t desirable anymore (i.e. they have been replaced). With software, a new version makes the old less desirable. Yet, in many instances, education as we have previously “done it” still has value.
Your point about alternatives is one that I need to think more about. Thanks for bringing it up.
I should mention as well that your reading list is very useful in helping people understand the changes we are facing, and my reaction to the “2.0″ term was not directed at your article but its common use.
Take care
George
Hi John,
My resistance to the term “2.0″ comes from how it objectifies a process (i.e. it takes the process of continual change and makes it a product). Learning 2.0, enterprise 2.0, etc. are not products as reflected in the common use for software. They are continual ongoing processes. It works for software. But not for more fluid concepts that are never frozen in form as with a new piece of software.
George