Beyond Web 2.0

March 7, 2008 at 1:22 pm · Filed under Semantic Technologies, Web 2.0, Web 3.0

While organisations continue to struggle with adopting E2.0 through Web 2.0 products, some are looking beyond and asking the question “what’s next?”. If Web1.0 was about communication, and Web 2.0 about collaboration, what should we be doing now in order to prepare for the future demands of users and the workplace, and have the upper-hand on competitors?

To prepare for the future we need to understand the evolution of the web, and Gary Hayes suggests that it is moving toward a more immersive environment.

We’re just starting to see that now with Web 2.0 — pushing the boundaries of information sharing from centralised and controlled by organisations to decentralised, collaborative and controlled by consumers. In essence, this means:

• Web 1.0 - unidirectional and “push”. E.g. traditional brochureware-style websites
• Web 2.0 - interactive - “push” + “pull”. E.g. Social computing websites like MySpace, Wikipedia, and Facebook
• Web 3.0 - immersive. E.g. 3D Virtual Worlds and ubiquitous computing
• Web 4.0, 5.0 … the semantic world with intelligent agents and adaptive information

The real benefits of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 (as defined by Gary) are just starting to emerge, with online spaces to work and share information, technology that truly supports information anytime and anyplace. Society is witnessing the emergence of digital natives who are born ‘technology aware’ and expect to be able to use the same technology they take for granted in their social lives in the work environment. And while some may have thought that the notion of a truly semantic web was dead and burried, the problems with database interaction and data interoperability to provide true intelligent context to data and information in online environments has raised the issue again:

How can we prepare and provide for the future of the web?

Annie Rowland-Campbell, a researcher with FujiXerox, suggests that we need to start preparing our data systems for the future by using semantic technologies. That is, separating out our data and metadata, and introducing ontologies to articulate the relationships between data sources, and their relationships, in order to provide true context and meaning to information.

Why separate out these elements? Simply put, traditional database design isn’t scalable to the extent we need to provide for intelligent agents and adaptive information of Web 4.0 and beyond. Even if we’re only dealing with data exchange between 6 stores, for example, to provide a true and complete context of information to users, we still need 24 points of integration.

If we use semantic technologies, and introduce an ontological layer, suddenly we reduce the overall design complexity from 24 to 6.

For organisations in Europe, where language is the common barrier to information exchange, this approach is already reaping rewards, and is where the ISO/IEC 13250:2000 standard Topic Maps was born. The approach turns our original concept of the semantic web, a layer on top of the current web that annotates information in a way that is “understandable” by computers, into something that is actually able to be fully-realised to meet the needs of Web 2.0’s future.

Comments (1)

What If … the Org Chart Had Links and Tags, Instead of Reporting Relationships ?

March 5, 2008 at 6:15 pm · Filed under Artisan Economy, Collaboration, Distributed Work, Enterprise 2.0, KM, Talent Management, Web 3.0, Web Apps

Of course it’s silly .. but this post by Hugh Macleod titled “Buckets” got me thinking …

If nature was designed like today’s business and software, water would trickle down the valley in buckets, from bucket to bucket.

More specifically:

We have wireless in coffee shops, Skyping on transatlantic flights, Blackberries, smartphones and laptops wherever we go - why not let (server based) systems do the delivery of work-orders, run the events, do the transactions and capture the data? Why not have the flows defined with loops and warts and all ready to be refined daily as the organisations learns and grows?

“Anataxonomy” and “Flow”, combine those two principles and use the wonders of technology accordingly.

So what does this mean? Sure, we’re already getting used to the idea of big commercial Open-Source software companies like Spikesource. But what about non-software? Open-Source Exxon’s? Open-Source General Motors’s?

This is when “Flow” starts getting REALLY important.

.

Smart knowledgeable people who have studied deeply the issue of why hierarchy seems such a durable concept tell us to get used to it … they say that there are good reasons why hierarchies thrive, even in the face of increasing flows of information and spreading forms of networked semi-transparency.

But hierarchies don’t have to remain static … and this is one of the big deficiencies in current models and with the existing tools of organizational design. Think about it. How often are there reorganizations, changes to departmental structures, downsizing, mergers or acquisitions - and the org chart gets tossed up in the air like a set of pick-up sticks. In the case of larger organizations, the “pick-up sticks” always come down in highly-organized, very neat looking boxes with straight lines that essentially state … “this is the right design .. this time we’ve got it” !

Until the next change.

Really, organizational structures are basically a rolling flow of change. Why the assumption of stability, of more-or-less static structure ? In my opinion, it’s just that many executive and management types don’t really like the feelings of messiness and control based only on engagement and willingness that accompany the conditions of continuous change.

So … what if work meant that at different times and for different projects, you could get *tagged* with different tags for different skills, and *linked* with other relevant of pertinent skill and personality *tags*, and so on ? Then, these new-style indicators (of capability) could be combined with availability / scheduling optimization software, and you’d have the basic format for a new form of organization chart.

Hierarchies could be developed at a specific time, for as long as may be necessary, and may involve different people or peoples depending upon the situation, the problems and the desired or hoped-for outcomes. So too for teams and purpose-focused networks of skills, abilities, competencies, willingness and availability.

If you stop and think about it for a moment, you can almost *feel* that this would probably seem more natural and more probably effective. But, we have a large legacy system in place.

Hmmm …

Back in the mid-1980’s there was a brief eruption of self-managing teams and what was called socio-technical work systems, where some of these types of issues were addressed - except that then the concepts of *knowledge work*, and mechanisms for manipulating information flows, like tags and hyperlinks, were only really fringe ideas.

Not anymore … but the org charts and the performance management and compensation practices are still (generally) what were used 30 and 20 and 10 years ago.

How much longer will yesteryear’s tools continue to suffice ?

This is basically the question Gary Hamel addresses in his recent book The Future of Management.

.

The Web is a near-ideal mechanism in which to culture new strains of social organization. From Craigslist to MySpace to FaceBook to Second Life to eHarmony, from instant messaging to podcasting, blogging, video chat and virtual worlds, the Internet is radically changing the ways in which people find romance, manage friendships, share insights, learn, build communities, and more.

For the moment, though, most of this joyous and frenzied experimentation is taking place outside the plush-carpeted hallways of the corporate old guard.

I find this ironic.

While no company would put up with a 1940’s-era phone system, or forgo the efficiency-enhancing benefits of modern IT, that’s exactly what companies are doing when they fail to exploit the Web’s potential to transform the way work of management is accomplished. Most managers still see the Internet as a productivity tool, or as a way of delivering 24/7 customer service. Some understand its power to upend old business models. but few have faced up to fact that sooner or later, the web is going to turn our smoke-stack management model on its head.

.

Powered by Qumana

Comments