Would the real Enterprise 2.0 please stand up.
I have read so much about Enterprise 2.0 over the last year I figured It was about time that I should air a nagging feeling I have had about the ‘New Enterprise’ for sometime now. I should also point out that I am not knocking those tools and services out there that pertain to be encompassed by the Enterprise 2.0 buzzword (E2.0), many of these tools like Wiki’s etc.. are ones in which I routinely engage. No this post is more about what the real Enterprise 2.0 really is, and how it has been totally hijacked by the buzzword E2.0.
I have also noticed many of the current enterprise vendors getting on the back of the E2.0 buzzword in order to make a new sale to their existing customer base, whilst at the same time making themselves appear more enterprise 2.0 (in the same way web bizs try to be more web 2.0). The thing is however, it’s not about the vendors re-inventing themselves, it’s about the enterprise being re-invented itself, its about the whole new generation of enterprises coming down the pike, these bear little resemblance to existing enterprises.
This change is not going to be small and incremental, it will be bloody and revolutionary, this isn’t about existing enterprises changing their I.T. tools. No what I’m talking about here is a whole new kind of enterprise, these organisations will become the new enterprises of the 21st century and they will be built very differently. Their I.T. will be as unrecogniseable from todays enterprise I.T. as mainframes are to mobile telephones.
‘Ok Ok I see what you are saying, very fanciful, but where is the evidence? Where are these new Enterprises?’
This is the question I have been asking myself over and over, who are they and what do they look like? Well, an enterprise is basically a large business (or organisation), often it is an international or global organisation but that isn’t required. OK heres is my first example of the emerging enterprise (EE -> E2) breed : Google!
‘What’ I hear the cries ‘Thats not fair they are an I.T. company’. Well it might not look fair and the comment is valid, but actually they are an advertising company first. The technology is a requirement in the new advertising enterprise space. The technology Google operates is a default requirement to compete in that space, just take a look at Microsoft trying to crow bar its way into that competitive landscape. ‘Yes but Google also sell their technology to other businesses aren’t they just like Microsoft?’ Actually no they are not like Microsoft because their primary business isn’t selling software/technology it’s selling advertising/attention, also there isn’t anything about being an enterprise that suggests one enterprise can’t sell to another enterprise, in fact it happens as par for the course now.
‘But isn’t Google just an exception?’ well possibly but unlikely in my opinion, if they are the exception then they will end up owning the new enterprise world. More likely however, other new enterprises will enter the fray and compete in the different sectors (including Google’s advertising sector). Google is also unlikely to sit still, it will expand into other sectors, just as enterprises do today, I don’t see that happening without resistance from both incumbents and new emerging competitors.
Thus one would do well to look at how Google operates inside and out, with the market and with their technology. There will be opportunities in many sectors for new enterprises ; Media, leisure & entertainment, health, banking & finance, engineering, retailing etc..
Google isn’t alone here are a couple of other emergent enterprises (E2) :
- Amazon in what originally was the retailing/consumer sector, although they cross over into logistics and operations.
- ebay is in the retailing/consumer sector, it’s like the new bazaar, but they are also looking to expand their influence elsewhere (Skype?)
I’m sure you can think of more.
But the most interesting thing about this whole post to me is not new enterprises we can see (Google, Amazon, ebay et al.) but rather those just emerging and those that haven’t even been thought up yet. Right now there is major disruption occurring across many different industry sectors as Umair says ‘new value creation models are there for the taking’ (I’m paraphrasing, check Umair’s blog for a complete picture). I would love to know your ideas, or pointers to emerging enterprises. This is a great opportunity to comment or post a series of fascinating what-ifs for the new enterprises.
Here is another idea, via Umair, to get your juices running : could this supersede the automobile industry model.
So when we look at the Enterprise 2.0 through the lense of the E2.0 buzzword it really doesn’t stack up, if you look at Amazon or Google’s software to operate their enterprises it looks nothing like the E2.0 characterised offerings. If it did we would just be slapping lipstick on the enterprise 1.0 pig. No to me Enterprise 2.0 is something radically different, this is not upgrade, it’s a wholesale re-invention of what it is to be an enterprise, I think the software and services that these new enterprises will require will look more like mini Googles or mini Amazons. I envisage a whole new market for vendors and service providers cropping up to satisfy such demands. It is also with some personal humour and even irony I observe IBM’s blue cloud being touted as an Enterprise EC2…
Enterprise 2.0 != E2.0
Enterprise 2.0 = E2
The real Enterprise 2.0 has now stood up or do you disagree…
Re: Would the real Enterprise 2.0 please stand up.
+1
So what might the new enterprises look like?
What seems most probable is that they'll be smaller.
I'm struck by an analogy with http://markbernstein.org/Dec0701/ImplementationPatterns.html ... we found out how to make more efficient things by breaking them up into smaller, more flexible things ... what Umair calls micro-chunking to increase plasticity and liquidity.
You can be small and still be big-business.
Doing what? Doing more aggregating / indexing / routing / brokering / adding meta-data / mining etc.
And, of course, as you become smaller, more of you touches the outside world. You aren't insulated from external suppliers and external customers by other departments in your enterprise.
You are more likely to be at the edge of your organization dealing with people outside. How does that change your relationships and IT tools? It means your tools must give you a semi-porous membrane - information must flow as openly and freely between you and your partners as possible. But not 100% open, you still must preserve some autonomy. Otherwise you'll cease to exist altogether.
Finding the right balance, to maximize the flow without self-anihilation, becomes the crucial art.
It means the people you deal with are likely to be always in "co-opetition" with you. You must learn to co-operate in uncertain circumstances, finding *reasons* to co-operate, yet always remain wary of arising conflicts.
You'll need to be tracking and watching your connections all the time. Your IT must give you continuous monitoring, statistics, summaries, overviews. It mustn't make it too combersome to "rejig" your relationships - swapping out one supplier for another or rerouting your product to a different market.
Statistics should be on demand, just in time, but never swamp you. Nor should they blinker you by telling you that your richest, most staid customer is your most important, and so blind you to potentially disruptive innovations.
If you're small, even if you're rich, your situation is likely to be more volatile ... huge flows of money come this month but next month may be gone. You must learn to deal with it and create some kind of stability ... stable like gyroscope, rather than like a rock.
Is Google too big? Why do all these businesses need to be bundled together? Is it because the senior managers just have better strategic vision for how eg. AdSense and Android and OpenSocial and Gmail and Blogger and a browser-based Office Suite and Knol should be run? It *shouldn't* be because Google's internal co-ordination and information sharing platform is better than the open-external one, should it?
If it is, that's pretty bad for the web. But I think it's unlikely.
But it's a question ... for me, it seems obvious that smaller is better ... smaller is the future, and yet your example is Google and Google is (relatively) huge. Does that mean I'm wrong? (Or maybe Google isn't so huge as some corporations?) Or is it like John Hagel says : http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2007/09/convergence-or-.html ?
BTW : re. free electric cars, you India is now making them for 2500 dollars? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7180396.stm
Re: Would the real Enterprise 2.0 please stand up.
It really depends what is meant by being small. Is it thinking small, in which case I would agree, the old slow dinosaur think won't cut it this century. Thinking small can make an enterprise more innovative and competitive.
If your thinking small indicates less employees, that is also possible as it indicates higher productivity and/or more outsourceing . Less folks would also mean less office space, resources capital expenditures etc..
I think you point regarding operating on the edge is a valid one and would expect this to concur with the 'getting smaller' above. JIT indicates close relationships with outsourceing and new models of trust in the supply chain, these are definitely signs to look for in the 'New Enterprise'.
I love your idea about balance on the edge between the canyons of information/communication failure, this fits nicely with what I see as the trend towards packet based collaboration (Things like REL3) and emergent message based platforms.
As for is Google to big, I think not I think given their influence and revenue, they are actually small on the global scale vs existing Enterprises (Anyone else here have real figures?). I also think Amazon are smaller than a comparative Enterprise 1.0 organisation.
Great comments Phil, thanks