zaterdag, augustus 22, 2009
That really got me annoyed.
A bicycle with a software version number? What is that supposed to mean? Is it Facebook-enabled? Does it send GPS-based tweets every hour? Or is just meant to be ‘open’ and shared by everybody (which happens to be the default for bicycles in Amsterdam, for that matter). And what might the even newer, enhanced Gitane Fitz Roy 3.0 bring? All parts have self-describing RFID chips built in? Semantic tyres? This is what happens when IT people start to flood the marketing department.
At a certain point in time, it all becomes too much. While we are entering the last part of 2009, we may want to call it a day, this ‘2.0’ stuff. It is established. Let’s all get a life again. Nowadays Web 2.0 evangelists just seem to be preaching to their own church of Web 2.0 devotees, already convinced and completely aware of all the virtues of collaboration, co-creation and being totally connected in general. And we might be stuffing that technology-driven thinking just a bit too much down the throats of business. We are version-numbering the others.
I happened to stumble upon a discussion started by Tom Graves which neatly sums it up. He rightfully stipulates that the ‘Enterprise 2.0’ concept essentially is about the power of people leveraging networked conversation, extending beyond the organisational borders. But in fact, the ‘official’ definition by Andrew McAfee mainly speaks about software and digital platforms. Then, somebody comments that ‘2.0’ is a software thing in the first place. How can you expect to speak business if you suggest that organisational changes are like software updates? He proposes to use Enterprise Next which is of course a charming, very reusable concept.
Albeit a bit generic, admitted.
I left my own comments, put something about it on Twitter and that really got the crowd going. In – well – true 2.0 style, creativity was quickly unleashed. Some people stayed close to the ‘next’ concept, suggesting Enterprise Thereafter, Enterprise Even Better and Enterprise The Next Generation. But also Enterprise Genesis, Enterprise Armageddon, Enterprise Revelations and Social Enterprise came up. Somebody suggested to use metaphorical city names, like Enterprise Babel - no explanation needed - and Enterprise Budapest (two cities coexist, business and technology, get it?).
It surely would change consulting jargon: “currently we have an Enterprise Armageddon baseline with some Babel elements but we are moving towards Enterprise Budapest" (thanks Steve Jones).
Yet many stayed closer to the more familiar IT grounds. If Ubuntu (thanks Mike Turner) and Apple are using imaginative version names, rather than numbers, why not apply that to the enterprise as well? We could have Enterprise Tiger, Enterprise Leopard and even Enterprise Snow Leopard (with only minor performance improvements and less employees). Heck, who does not want to be a part of Enterprise Jaunty Jackalope?
Richard Veryard has a good point in emphasising the nature of an IT company as a metaphor for the desired change: Enterprise-a-Google would be an enterprise that aims to emulate the innovative, entrepreneurial spirit of Google. In the same way, you could strive to be an Enterprise-a-Dell, an Enterprise-a-Cisco or an Enterprise-a- Red Hat. I even got the suggestion to use a software package as the metaphor: according to a Micro Strategy tweet, Enterprise Wave would be ‘caffeine for enterprises’.
Just makes you wonder how many companies would suit the Enterprise WordPerfect description.
All in all, no lack of creativity here. And I am sure you all agree that the ‘2.0’ suffix by now is something to really, really avoid. Of course, the biggest challenge for IT people is to forget a bit more about the world they come from when reaching out to business people. After all, it’s the IT people. that invented Enterprise 2.0. And it’s the IT people that currently try to describe what – according them – is a true business architecture. Usually without asking anybody in the business (more about this soon).
No matter what we are using: version numbers, release names, package names: it is obviously difficult to let go of IT roots. A formidable challenge. Whether you are working in Enterprise Karmic Koala or not.
Eerst gepubliceerd op Capgemini's CTO blog
donderdag, augustus 20, 2009
Ondertussen heb ik een eh 'voorlopige' versie via Internet kunnen bekijken (maakt u zich overigens geen zorgen, ik koop altijd de DVD als die eenmaal uitgekomen is) en de film maakt de hype met gemak waar. Een ongelooflijk goed en realistisch begin (de special effects vallen op doordat al het blinkende materiaal met succes is verwerkt in het stof en de brandende zon van Johannesburg) wordt lichtjes teniet gedaan door een meer traditionele shoot-out finale. Desalniettemin een film met een aantal beklemmende boodschappen en een vormgeving die doet denken aan Cloverfield in overdrive.Gelijk na de vakantie kun je wel eens behoefte hebben aan wat nieuwe media-impulsen - gewoon om weer zin te krijgen in alles -en met District 9 zie je iets wat je nog niet eerder hebt gezien. In dezelfde categorie zitten overigens de band Them Crooked Vultures (de twee mini-clips zijn onderdeel van een razendslimme Internetcampagne; wat kun je overigens blij worden van 30 seconden snoeiharde gitaar-riffs), de aanstaande release van The Beatles: Rock Band en natuurlijk de nu bijna onvermijdelijke Apple Tablet.