The “six ways to make Web 2.0 work” article has been getting a lot of retweets on twitter, and a lot of references from different blogs (footnote: really interesting to see the echo-chamber that blogs and twitter have become to be when you research something like this, some even repeat the entire article with embedded “we agree” additions throughout the text). The thing is: I don’ t get it. Where is the real relation with Web 2.0? Are any of these points mentioned specifically related to Web 2.0? Or can I replace Web 2.0 with any modern new technology? Although the answer might already be clear from the way the question is phrased, my answer is: Yes.

I think all the six points mentioned can be valid for any technology introduction, that is: if the introduced technology  is going to be used by humans . Do a check yourself, and you will probably agree. the reason that I say “can be valid” is that some might not necessarily be true for some occasions, and other points/rules might pop-up for others. My current employer has developed a methodology that structures the synergy that is required between People and Technology in order to achieve the desired business outcomes. So far, the methodology has mainly been put to practice for introducing the New World of Work in Enterprises, but due to its generic nature it can be used for any situation where the synergy between people and technology is crucial.

Agree / disagree? Let me know, I am interested in feedback on this …. !

Sometimes a simple illustration can trigger a lot of thought. When I first saw the illustration below I was immediately struck although not really sure why.

In the weeks after that first impression I actually found myself using this illustration to explain complex topics and therewith simplify discussions I had with several people.

First of all, I think this illustration does a great job of showing the evolution that the Web has gone through. In the first phase of the web all activities are centered around broadcasting information. Companies and people create websites and use them to broadcast their messages into the world. This is the era of the webmaster, and site navigation based on the organizational structure. Then came the transactional web. Editorial & marketing teams took over, the navigational structure was mostly based on the products and services an organization offered, and the main objective was moving actual business online. We are currently in the personal phase of the web, which is characterized by three key elements:Relevant (e.g. personalized messages and offerings), Interactive (e.g. the read-write web, User generated content) and Social (e.g. online networks, references and reviews).

Now, the red line in the illustration marks an important crossover (note that I’ve added the red line and the Science and Arts labels myself). On the left side of the red line are the phases we have already mastered. It has resulted in new job titles, services and organizations that focus on things like Search Engine Marketing, Search Engine Optimization, Web Analytics, Pay per Click Management et cetera. As we have mastered these phases we have created the science required for these phases and we know what to do (or who to hire) to do them right.

However, on the right side of the red line we are still discovering and learning. Success here is not based on science, it still is an Art:organizations follow their gut and try to innovate. Ok, I understand this is not 100% true. There are first examples of methodologies that will lay the groundworks for future science, but, even Analysts are confirming that the miss rate for this phase is still very high.

Valérie Léonard made a righteous statement in her last post: ORM goes beyond SEM. It certainly does, and for me this illustration also shows that. SEM is on the left side of the red line, ORM is on the right. Over time we will create new sciences for this new phase that the web is entering. For now: get yourself a good artist!

Browsing some of the WCM vendor’s sites here in the Netherlands, I found they all have a Web 2.0 whitepaper. I figured they (Tridion, GX and Smartsite) were caught in a me too strategy, so I decided to download and compare them. Turns out there is a big difference in the whitepapers of these three vendors.

The Smartsite whitepaper is really stuck on a feature level story: we have Web 2.0 features such as tag clouds, blogs, collaboration and mash-ups. No story whatsoever on how Smartsite will help you tap into the potential value of Web 2.0 (let alone what this value might be).

The GX whitepaper starts of nicely but quickly moves to why GX is the best bet for a Web 2.0 strategy:  their component based approach allows you to add functionality and applications to the site. Hm, two immediate questions come to mind: 1) how do functionality and applications relate to content management? and 2) doesn’t this put GX in head-on competition with portal and application server vendors (such as websphere and sharepoint to name two).

The Tridion whitepaper gives a decent spin on what Web 2.0 is, and what the value for organizations might be, and, how they can try and tap into this value. There is one thing missing though: how is the Tridion product going to help in this?

I am still missing a good story on how WCM vendors reposition themselves for the Web 2.0. They have all been focussed on creating an efficient broadcasting process. Now that Web 2.0 forces organizations to join the online conversation the question is how these WCM tools will help them in that. Will they? How will they support them in listening, and creating the right response for the conversations that are taking place? I think it will not suffice to just add Web 2.0 features such as blogs and tag clouds, and it looks like this is what they are doing. I am missing something here? If you think so let me know, I am going to digg deeper into this in the meanwhile.