For a long while now, Jevon MacDonald and I have been grousing about how the different players involved in delivering 2.0 solutions to business can often be confused and misunderstood. We started working on a graphic, which I’ll happily “open source” for anyone’s input or for re-purposing. Just send me a note and I’ll invite you to the shared space we are working on at Vyew.
Generally speaking, there are primarily four logical groups with similar characteristics:
Digital Marketers: These are the good folks who track what you’re searching for and buying on the web. They create digital brand extensions of leading brands and develop imaginative ways to capture your attention online.
Social Media: This group comprises a vast group of players who are exclusively focused on how communications in the interconnected social web impacts influence. Predominantly, the people involved with monitoring social media are involved in marketing communications.
Enterprise 2.0: Within the Enterprise 2.0 area of expertise, whether it’s behind the firewall or out on the open Internet, this core area specializes exclusively on delivering a business value via 2.0 technologies.
Mass collaboration: This group is more symbolic of a new way of thinking about collaboration than any specific 2.0 tool. The notion of reaching outside of your boundary (whatever it is) to co-create innovative solutions is key here.
Although there is overlap among all these groups, the areas of focus are distinctly unique. Of course, businesses can benefit by incorporating the expertise from all these areas, but they’d need to source it separately.
What a great visual. The one domain I’d like to see represented concerns the fact that an organization (or people) practicing “Information-Sharing 2.0” should do so under some measure of information governance, i.e., underneath the activity domains and solutions illustrated, there’s a consistent need to manage the information and data (consumed or produced) according to a governance model that makes sense to your context. You may need to observe legal, policy, procedure, standards or simply effective business controls to make sure the information you’re stewarding (i.e. “enterprise assets”) is used most effectively and appropriately (and can be measured as such). Enterprise Content Management disciplines applied to the Information-Sharing 2.0 paradigm.
Hey Susan, Nice breakdown. I’ve been working with Visible Technologies lately so I guess I’m now in the Social Media circle of things. Hope all is well in Austin.
Keep in Touch,
Mike
Susan,
I think you should split out “Enterprise 2.0” into its internal and external components. Forrester calls these “Enterprise 2.0” and “Social Computing” respectively, and puts them both under one “Enterprise Web 2.0” heading.
Niall
Very interesting … do you see the “mass collaboration” circle as including “consumer participants” or would these folks create a comprise a separate circle? I would see this circle as overlapping digital marketing and social media.
Glad to see you have RSS in the Enterprise 2.0 part :-), but there are probably a few more tools that support SLATES that could be thrown in there too – e.g. search, tagging etc (which might actually overlap with mass collaboration). The other player you might like to add into the background is around information and even records management.
Thank you – I’ve not seen these groupings laid out this way before, but it makes sense and is a very helpful way of depicting it. I’ll be following this with interest.