Web2.0:”Stuff of the future” or “Stuff and nonsense”
Spurred by Steve’s remark dismissing Web2.0 technologies as flaky,
I thought a few words in defence of Web2.0 would be worthwhile (a subject I have written about over the last year in my ebizq blog ). I should however state that I have no sympathy with the hyperbole and bizarrely anti-enterprise IT attitudes of some Web2.0 evangelists such as David Girourard of Google who says:
“Enterprise software is entirely bereft of soul. It is designed for business not for humans.”
Or the respected Enterprise Web2.0 visionary, John Hagel, who back in April stated that SOA had failed because
“SOAs were hijacked by an alliance of CIOs and IT consulting firms, each with their own reason for extending the effort required to deploy SOAs.”
And then went on to propose the way to getting over this problem for Web2.0 is:
“First, Web 2.0 technologists need to work on connecting directly with line executives of large enterprises without trying to go through the IT departments.”
Man the barricades, business line executives all you have to lose is your IT chains!
However, Steve’s skepticism is valid: Much Web2.0 technology is immature and hard to use. As he mentions, anybody who has set up a blog with RSS feeds (both of which are well established Web2.0 technologies) will know that it can be surprisingly tricky and unpredictable: Not the usual characteristics of a technology that one would consider unleashing on those disinterested in technology – the type of people that some claim Web2.0 technologies should appeal to!
However, as with any new wave, some of the Web2.0 technologies will mature and gain ground in the enterprise while others wither. One of the ground-gainers is enterprise wikis because they provide real value. Now, I am not saying the wiki tools are perfect but they are good enough and good enough is a key metric: So long as they are good enough to use, for most people that is sufficient if they can see the value. Using enterprise wikis to reduce the mountain of email with yet another version of a project plan or discussion document attached is clearly a good thing. When you can do it with little cost and little need for IT department to handhold, better still!
A web2.0 guide is next on my task list – so expect more this subject soon!
Ronan
Recent Comments
November 1, 2010 (8:36) CICS and PHP - DON'T PANIC It's great to see transactional support of any kind for a cloud language... be it PHP or not (whi...
July 16, 2010 (12:41) Does Micro Focus Server for SOA miss the point? I think Micro Focus has done a tremodeous introduction of Web Service from a COBOL. May not be a ...
June 15, 2010 (6:14) CICS and PHP - DON'T PANIC Hi Steve, Well, we don't actually *demand* that you host the PHP in regions separate to those ru...
April 3, 2010 (12:27) AMQP - Great idea, but it will never work As someone who has worked on DDS from an implementation perspective as well as an OMG standards p...
December 12, 2009 (9:15) Did Teilhard's JuxtaComm patent wipe out IBM, Microsoft and SAP? Subsequent to my post, the Calgary Herald ran an article (http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/P...
December 10, 2009 (9:01) AMQP - Great idea, but it will never work Now, this is a late reply! @Thorlin. I looked at DDS before embarking on AMQP (I also looked a...
December 7, 2009 (2:40) Come in Texas East District Court, your time is up The important thing to remember about patents is that they're all about the claims. While the bu...
October 27, 2009 (9:08) BAM vs BI Good article. Thanks, Emil
October 23, 2009 (11:04) So Oracle got Sun - but why? Oracle has stepped up the rhetoric when it comes to its plans for Sun. In a message to Sun custom...
September 16, 2009 (1:15) IBM gets Cognos to fill the gaps IBM has two BAM solutions now Cognos Now! and Websphere Business Monitor. Why two BAM solutions f...