Hide Notes 

Slide 1: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT WITH WEB 2.0 Author: Pablo Bermejo García TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract................................................................................................................................. 1 Technology Review .............................................................................................................. 1 Introducing Web 2.0........................................................................................................ 1 A bit of History................................................................................................................ 2 Definitions....................................................................................................................... 3 Social Software—The “World Live Web” ...................................................................... 5 New Technologies ........................................................................................................... 9 Enterprise Web 2.0 ............................................................................................................. 13 What is Enterprise Web 2.0? ......................................................................................... 13 The State of Enterprise Web 2.0.................................................................................... 14 Why Web 2.0?............................................................................................................... 16 Business Case Study: Knowledge Management 2.0 ........................................................... 18 Principles of Knowledge Management.......................................................................... 18 Introducing Knowledge Management 2.0...................................................................... 18 Business Impacts of KM 2.0: Benefits .......................................................................... 20 Business Impacts of KM 2.0: Risks............................................................................... 23 Business Impacts of KM 2.0: Security .......................................................................... 25 Business Impacts of KM 2.0: Governance .................................................................... 27 Business Impacts of KM 2.0: Best Practices ................................................................. 28 Summary: SWOT Analysis ........................................................................................... 29 CSC Enterprise Web 2.0 ..................................................................................................... 30 Introduction to CSC KM Processes and Infrastructures ................................................ 30 Overview of CSC Knowledge Communities and Workplaces ...................................... 31 The State of Enterprise Web 2.0 in CSC ....................................................................... 32 Deployment Road map .................................................................................................. 34 User Training................................................................................................................. 37 Impacts on Catalyst ....................................................................................................... 38 Products State of the Art ..................................................................................................... 39 The Need of Products .................................................................................................... 39 Gartner’s Magic Quadrant ............................................................................................. 40 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 41 References .......................................................................................................................... 44 i
Slide 2: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Evolution of the Web ...................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Web 2.0 Paradigm .................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Wikipedia Articles Progression .............................................................................. 7 Figure 4. Mashup Browser-Side Integration........................................................................ 12 Figure 5. Mashup Server-Side Integration........................................................................... 12 Figure 6. Web 2.0-SOA Convergence [24].......................................................................... 13 Figure 7. Ten Web 2.0 Apps CIOs Personally Use.............................................................. 14 Figure 8. Current Investments in Web 2.0 ........................................................................... 15 Figure 9. Level of Satisfaction for Web 2.0 ROI ................................................................. 15 Figure 10. Google Trends Showing Evolution of Web 2.0.................................................. 16 Figure 11. Google Trends Showing Evolution of Web 2.0 Enablers ................................... 16 Figure 12. Key Features of Web 2.0 Solutions [27]............................................................. 17 Figure 13. Knowledge Management 2.0 Model................................................................... 19 Figure 14. Security Filters for Corporate Social Software................................................... 26 Figure 15. The Empty Quarter of Enterprise Web 2.0 Adoption ......................................... 28 Figure 16. CSC Portal Wiki User Activity (November 2007) ............................................. 33 Figure 17. CSC Portal Wiki User Activity (December 2007).............................................. 33 Figure 18. Road Map for CSC Enterprise Web 2.0 ............................................................. 34 Figure 19. Portal Communities and Wiki Communities Cohabitation in Beta Period ................................................................................................. 36 Figure 20. The Future of CSC Knowledge Communities with Web 2.0.............................. 36 Figure 21. The Difficulty Curve of Web 2.0 Platforms [61]................................................ 38 Figure 22. Catalyst Knowledge Environment...................................................................... 38 Figure 23. Traditional IT Structures vs. Enterprise Web 2.0 ............................................... 39 Figure 24. CIO Level of Interest in Enterprise Web 2.0 Products ....................................... 40 Figure 25. Gartner Magic Quadrant for Team Collaboration and Social Software (2007) ................................................................................... 40 ii
Slide 3: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ABSTRACT Web technologies, far from using the same resources time and again and being locked in a concrete service format, have evolved. They have done so through what today is known as Web 2.0, a concept introduced by O’Reilly Media as a phrase to describe the second generation of Web technologies, mainly focused on online collaboration, communication, and social networking. Tools like blogs, wikis, RSS, social bookmarking, and mashup applications are now consolidated in this emerging scenario and enjoy great acceptance within the Internet community. A new collaboration culture has been conceived and must truly be embraced by the enterprise in order to improve current knowledge management (KM) systems. Traditional knowledge management is more about capturing knowledge through document repositories, sharing that knowledge with groupware tools, and making it accessible via corporate portals, which are fragile environments that can frustrate users. There is no time to lose; companies need to mitigate this demise of knowledge management by taking advantage of emerging Web 2.0 collaboration technologies, building a new strategy focused on social networks and the flow of knowledge between the people in them. Web 2.0 tools solve all this by means of sharing, pulling, subscribing to, and publishing knowledge, and—above all—by connecting knowledge workers, who are more willing to share their knowledge, collaborate, and innovate using tools they already know and like. These new enterprise strategies based on Web 2.0 technologies synthesize into what today is known as Enterprise Web 2.0. The main objective of this investigation is to (1) analyze the business values, benefits, and risks of adopting an Enterprise Web 2.0 solution for knowledge management, giving a list of recommendations in terms of security, governance, legal regulations, and best practices, and (2) design a solution for how this Enterprise Web 2.0 strategy can be embraced by CSC, including a specific road map for deployment. TECHNOLOGY REVIEW INTRODUCING WEB 2.0 The next generation Web has arrived, and it has been given the name Web 2.0, a phrase coined by O’Reilly Media in 2004 that refers to a new philosophy of using the Web that results from the combination of two compelling enablers [1]: new technologies and social software. New Technologies Web 2.0 is technically driven by a set of new technologies and techniques that make us use Web browsers in a richer and more comfortable way than we ever did before. These new technologies, headed by Ajax, have motivated an evolution of Web applications to what today is known as Rich Internet Applications (RIA), a new approach that tries to leverage the features and look and feel of desktop applications to the Web. As an example of this new kind of Web application, we have Google, who has certainly become a standard in the Web 2.0 panorama, if only because its products have defined their respective application areas. Ajax has existed for a long time, but GMail and Google Maps have rescued and reanimated this technique for e-mail and map applications, respectively, resulting in Ajax becoming the technique that better represents the acceptance of these new design concepts. 1
Slide 4: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Besides Ajax, other techniques such as mashup applications and technologies like RSS have helped to build not only a new kind of Web application but also an innovative Web architecture (or platform) totally open for new and revolutionary ways of development. Thus, the whole IT industry has been mobilized for both providers and customers to rapidly enable their business for and with Web 2.0 technologies. Social Software There is also a social aspect of Web 2.0, and this is where it really made the change. New collaborative software like social bookmarking, profiling, blogs, and wikis has introduced a new concept of online collaboration. Before, in Web 1.0, people just went to a Web page and read something that other users (usually a Webmaster) wrote on that page. In that scenario, if a reader wants to collaborate with additional content or knowledge, the connection is made offline via e-mail, phone, or street address, as long as the author is willing to provide these details. With Web 2.0 and social software we can go online and contribute our own content, working collaboratively and helping to create a big network of users, connected in one single point, a Web application, where users are more willing to share and innovate. Furthermore, Web 2.0 contributors usually tag Web content with keywords representing the main subject, creating a new concept of folksonomy, or collaborative tagging, where content is annotated and categorized with short and descriptive tags [8]. This metadata is generated not only by experts but also by creators and consumers of that content, helping to reinforce the thought that the Web is built by us, where millions of people contribute to millions of people. This is in effect a social network, and as Tim O’Reilly states in his article What is Web 2.0? [3], “network effects from user contributions are the key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era.” A BIT OF HISTORY The term Web 2.0, originally introduced by O’Reilly Media in the Web 2.0 brainstorming conference in 2004, has brought on a lot of criticism, as it means different things to different people. For many, it is just another no-sense buzzword underlying a big marketing campaign utilized by companies claiming a position in the new IT world. For others, the term really makes sense and reflects the paradigm shift that the Web is living. However, some experts believe that the term should have been explained in the original conference, as it looks like there is not a deliberate intention to suggest there was a new version of the Web, and their intention was to point out that it mattered again, it was disruptive again [4], after the collapse of dot-com in the wake of the century. In this conference, O’Reilly exposed a main argument defending the “Web as a platform,” but this idea didn’t live much further. In addition, the evolution of the Web was presented graphically with real examples taken from successful stories in Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 [3]. A more up-to-date diagram is introduced in Figure 1. 2
Slide 5: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Web 1.0 DoubleClick Ofoto Geocities Britannica Online Personal Websites Browser Favorites Web 2.0 Google AdSense Flickr MySpace Wikipedia Blogging del.icio.us Wiki Tagging (Folksonomy) RSS Content Management Directories (taxonomy) Stickiness Figure 1. The Evolution of the Web Looking at Figure 1, we can recall hundreds of companies that, for one reason or another, lived and grew strong in the Web 1.0 era but then failed to prosper. But not all the big companies suffered from the burst of the dot-com bubble. The reason behind why some Web 1.0 giants like Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, and eBay have also succeeded in the Web 2.0 age and didn’t fall into the big depression is that their business core values, in each case, were based on harnessing the collective intelligence; consequently, they have evolved as Web 2.0 companies [3]. Additionally, new and innovative companies like Wikipedia, YouTube, del.icio.us, and MySpace are emerging under this revolutionary scenario, picking up this same idea to make their mark on the Web. But, what does “harnessing the collective intelligence” mean, and how can it be positive for a company to succeed? It means that explicit or tacit user activity is taken into account by a system as an input to produce final results, which grows organically in response to this activity. It is all about letting the structure and behavior of systems emerge naturally instead of trying to impose it. Clear real examples of the success of harnessing the collective intelligence are, among others, Wikipedia’s trusted content management model based on the wisdom of crowds instead of Encarta’s centralized experts committee, or del.icio.us folksonomy structured in tags instead of Yahoo’s taxonomy organized in directories under the criteria of a few specialists. DEFINITIONS As introduced above, the term Web 2.0 is quite difficult to define in a few words. For many, such as IT leaders, providers, and vendors, just writing about it is a struggle because Web 2.0 is not a product. It is the Internet community of experts and contributors who have put thoughts together and produced really rich definitions. The most important are sketched below and depicted in Figure 2. • Wikipedia: Web 2.0 refers to a perceived second generation of web-based communities and hosted services—such as social-networking sites, Wikis and folksonomies—which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing between users. The term became popular following the first O’Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004. Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any 3
Slide 6: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT technical specifications, but to changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the internet [7]. • O’Reilly: Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an “architecture of participation,” and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences [5]. However, if we perceive Web 2.0 as a paradigm shift, we have to understand that a paradigm is just a model—a position from which assumptions, concepts, or values are made. Hence, the definition of the term Web 2.0 diverges depending on the corresponding discipline involved. The list below briefly presents the most important points of view and definitions for this new concept: • Architecture: Web 2.0 is an innovative architecture that redefines the way in which Web applications are designed in order to produce and consume services directly from other Web applications using open standards and technologies over the HTTP protocol. (Key Word = Design) • Marketing & Sales: Web 2.0 is a term to describe the new style in Web applications, and it is used by companies to catalog their Web products as innovative, dynamically responding to the latest and always-changing customer needs (Key Word = Catalog) • Human-Computer Interaction: Web 2.0 is a new way of using the Web, where systems are closer to people and user experience is really improved, driven by the responsiveness, fresh look and feel, and behavior of new Web applications. (Key Word = User Experience) • Sociology: Web 2.0 is a new way of understanding the Web, where the content is built by the collaboration of a community of users, and Web applications are designed in such a way that a network of users is created in order to discover new content in a more manageable fashion. (Key Word = Collaboration) Architecture Marketing Design Catalog Web 2.0 User Experience Collaboration HCI Sociology Figure 2. Web 2.0 Paradigm 4
Slide 7: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SOCIAL SOFTWARE—THE “WORLD LIVE WEB” The term “social software” does not refer to a new software development paradigm but to a new category of Web collaboration tools devised to boost participation and interaction between users, helping to create a social network in which people are more connected to share knowledge. Below are the most representative tools, their innovations, and what is compelling about each of them. Blogs The Weblog (blog), a term introduced by Jorn Barger in 1997, is a widespread tool familiar to many. Its simple chronological structure, combined with the generally universal ability to add comments to the original article, make it a strong platform for an author to have his personal opinion on the Internet and engage in conversation with a global reach about different hot topics. This is nothing new, as personal Web pages and diaries have been around for many years. What has really changed is the way this information is delivered to the audience and the value added to the information through a series of functions listed below: • Collaboration. The inverse chronological view of blogs improves information organization, establishing a linear knowledge base more accessible to a wider, nontechnical audience. Additionally, the ability to respond with comments to the author’s posts facilitates the possibility of a rich and open dialog. • RSS. This XML-based technology is one of the key enablers of the Web 2.0 architectural revolution. It is an awareness mechanism by which Web users are subscribed to a Web site, receiving feeds of content for that site. This way, the use of tools like RSS Aggregators makes it possible for blog readers to automatically keep updated with the latest news in those blogs they are subscribed to, instead of actively checking them. This direction in the flow of information is one of the key factors of the blogging success. • Permalink. Blogs are dynamic database-backed Web sites. This means that blog entries and comments are stored in a DBMS and the most recent ones show up on the blog home page (usually up to 10 most recent entries). Thus, a link to a blog is expected to point to this changing page, but what happens if we want to link to a concrete post? The Permalink solves this, providing an entry point for a particular post instead of the home page; that is, you link to something that is not actually on the page when you are looking at it [9]. As a side effect, this helps to easily point to someone else’s thoughts and begin an open discussion, producing a network of bloggers linked to each other, also known today as the blogosphere (the natural evolution of Usenet and bulletin boards). • Tag Cloud. This is a kind of histogram used to graphically describe the content tags used on a Web site, providing a categorization where these tags are just hyperlinks allowing the user to drill down into the Web content [10]. Tag clouds are also an easy method for incorporating statistic and control tools into a Web page, as well as a new way of doing a site search. • Trackback. Introduced in 2002 by Six Apart, it is another awareness mechanism by which a blogger can see when anyone else is linking to any of the blogger’s posts. This technique promotes two-way dialog and helps develop a richer discussion within the blogosphere. 5
Slide 8: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT There are an important number of free blogging platforms out there on the Internet available to all of us, with WordPress, TypePad, Google Blogger, and MySpace Blogs the most wellknown and utilized. Additionally, online newspapers have embraced blogging as a new culture of writing opinion articles on the Web but now more linked to the audience, who can participate by responding with comments to the journalist. As a result, this widespread use of blogs on the Internet community has inspired some forward-thinking companies to build blog search engines; tools like Technorati have arisen under this scenario to provide users with a centralized point for coming across new sources of information (Who’s saying what? Right now?). According to Technorati data as of November 2007, there are around 112 million blogs on the Internet, meaning that more than 175,000 new blogs are created every day; as for the content update frequency, 1.6 million new entries are posted per day (18 updates per second) [13]. Wikis As a technology, the wiki is actually older than the blog, with the first being credited to Ward Cunnigham in 1994. Probably the best-known example is the public Wikipedia Web site, which in its own words defines a Wiki as “collaborative technology for organizing information on Web sites” [11]. The word wiki means “quick” in Hawaiian, emphasizing the concept that wikis should be quick and easy to use. The basic elements consist of a Web site made up of a number of editable pages, content linked in a nonhierarchical manner, and a set of formatting tags (Wiki Mark-Up Language), all available to multiple users. Wiki strengths include: • Trusted and Quick Content Management. Due to its collaborative nature, in which any user can edit any content using an enhanced text editor in a Web browser, a wiki turns into a content management system ruled by the principles of mutual trust between users. Traditional content management is more about having a centralized administration figure and an approval workflow closed to a certain number of users. A wiki, instead, is a space open for collaboration, where everyone contributes with content on top of others’ content, creating a big sense of community [12]. • Mark-Up Language. The Wiki Mark-Up language gives the user the ability to not only add format to the text of a Web page but also to extend the page content by means of links to other existing pages within the wiki space. As a result, the Web site is instantly made up of user contributions and organized in a nonhierarchical, combined structure. • RSS. Digested or entire content is delivered to the subscribed audience by means of syndication. In the case of a wiki, you can subscribe to updates on a particular content page or the whole wiki space, helping contributors manage Web sites in a more effective and lively way. • Versioning and Tracking Tools. The majority of wiki software (e.g., MediaWiki, which is the software used by Wikipedia) comes with versioning and tracking tools so that changes are easily backed up and logs are automatically created after any user contribution. This way, if errors occur or contributions do not pass the quality gates, the Web page can effortlessly return to the last known good configuration. However, this is not a common feature, as not all vendors incorporate these functions into their wiki software products. 6
Slide 9: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT These uses of a wiki are wide-ranging, with many public examples available on the Internet. Wikis are particularly suited to knowledge bases, support, and documentation; they are popular with Open Source software distributions. As opposed to what happens with blogs, there is no tool to keep track of wikis being created on the Web. However, the most representative statistics are in terms of contributions performed to the Wikipedia for all languages, providing quantitative values for how the collaborative model is currently working in the Internet community. As of October 2007, Wikipedia contained around 8,650,000 articles in 252 different languages [14]; over the last year around 3,330,000 new articles have been created, meaning around 9,100 new articles are created each day. The evolution of contributions in Wikipedia can be summarized in Figure 3. 10000000 9000000 8000000 7000000 6000000 5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Series1 Figure 3. Wikipedia Articles Progression Social Networking Services The concept of social networking Web applications is very much explained by Wikipedia as a tool focused on building online social networks for communities of people who share interests or activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others in the community. The core feature is the user profile, which is publicly exposed in the system to create a centralized directory of users, in which everyone has the ability to explore and add contacts to their personal profiles. Consequently, the network effects derived from this structure are quickly visible and the results easily measurable. Services like MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, hi5, or Orkut are among the most popular social networking services that we find in the current Web 2.0 panorama. The common main functionality for all these systems is constructed upon public profile directories and the connections between the people in them; however, they are trying to expand the boundaries of the underlying social network by means of public application programming interfaces (API) designed to provide functionality to interoperate with the network. Thus, any third-party company or individual can make use of these APIs to build up a new Web application able to search and add contacts from that social network. Currently, the most notable social networking APIs are the Facebook platform and Google OpenSocial. The first provides a collection of functionality written in a proprietary format and designed to work exclusively with Facebook’s social network. The second is an open solution designed by Google in collaboration with other social networking services like MySpace, LinkedIn, hi5, Ning, and Orkut. In this manner, OpenSocial offers capabilities to 7
Slide 10: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT create new social networking services (“applications”) based on other existing social networks created in other social networking services (“Containers”). For example, if we have three social networks created in containers like hi5, MySpace, and LinkedIn, which offer services throughout OpenSocial, then we can create a new application called MyNetwork in which users can register in order to have access to those three networks, being able to search and add contacts from people listed on a whole, wider and richer directory. As a result, my application grows because it offers users an entry point to a set of three different social networks, and containers grow as their systems are connected to each other over my application, all of them supporting OpenSocial. Social Bookmarking Any of us who have a list of Web sites we visit on a regular basis are familiar with the concept of creating a list of these favorites by creating bookmarks in our Web browser of choice, based on the quality of the content and a sense of probable future usage. The concept of social bookmarking takes this idea a stage further by taking those essentially private bookmarks and making them available to others. Thus, an increasing number of social bookmarking systems have emerged over the past few years, allowing users to share and discover information among a community of users. This kind of systems use provides a free service, allowing users to register and bookmark Internet content through a simple Web interface. In making these bookmarks publicly available and searchable via the Internet, social bookmarking makes it very easy to find valid and verified information on topics of interest. Additionally, the ability to identify contacts means groups of people can easily share bookmarks of interest, creating a network of users. Common features of social bookmarking Web applications include the following: • Social Network. Users create a personal collection of bookmarks, associating each one with one or more categories. Automatically, these bookmarks are made available to other registered users, who also have a private store of tagged bookmarks. These user profiles are accessible to every user, who can check out what other people have been reading and saving, find out what their subjects of interest are, and even know their level of knowledge. This system turns into a great mechanism to find experts in a particular field and gain knowledge from them. Consequently, a network of users can be easily developed, all connected in one single point, which is the Web application. • RSS. By means of syndication, a user can subscribe to another’s bookmark collection or to a concrete topic, being alerted automatically about any updates in the shared information. • Tag Clouds. All bookmarks are commonly put together or categorized through tag clouds. Therefore, a user can easily discover what’s hot in the community of users, or just realize what topics are the most relevant for a given user, again finding experts in the network in a very comfortable way. The public del.icio.us site, introduced in 2002, is the most widely known example of a social bookmarking application, with 3 million users registered and more than 100 million unique URLs bookmarked [17]. In addition, there are a rich number of offerings on the Internet such as Simpy, Scuttle, Digg, Furl, and Spurl that are good social bookmarking sites worth looking into. 8
Slide 11: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT NEW TECHNOLOGIES Web 2.0 is technically driven by a set of new techniques and technologies that have initiated a real revolution in terms of how Web applications are developed and how architectures are designed. The following subsections scope out the most innovative Web 2.0 technologies, describing what is technically new, how the technologies work, and how they are currently being used. Ajax One of the key technical ingredients of Web 2.0 is Ajax, which stands for Asynchronous JavaScript And XML. Although a decreasing number of authors still refer to it as a technology (we only have to Google it to notice that), Ajax is a technique, a method made up of the combination of several standardized technologies such as JavaScript, XML, and other techniques such as DHTML. The core magic relies on the XMLHttpRequest object, supported by the majority of Web browsers and designed to establish an independent, transparent, asynchronous communication channel between the client and the server [15]. The use of the XMLHttpRequest object started early in this century, being introduced by Microsoft as part of Outlook Web Access in 2000 [16]. A few years passed, and when nobody heard the term Ajax in the field of Web development (it is also the name of a prestigious European Football Club and a kitchen cleanser), Google started to develop applications such as Google Maps, GMail, and Google Suggest, following this new development pattern. Obviously, after that important milestone, this technique gained popularity and was coined Ajax by Jesse James Garrett in 2005. The rest is a well-known story. The main innovation introduced by the Ajax development approach is that a Web browser, by means of JavaScript, can communicate with the server transparent to the user, opening an independent communication channel in which the client can request from the server any piece of data. This means that after this interaction, desired pieces of a Web page can be dynamically updated with fresh server data without reloading the current Web page. This technique is used to boost user experience in Web browsers, improving application usability, which now can work and look more like desktop applications. Although Ajax was originally conceived as an acronym frequently written with capitals (AJAX), the most appropriate use of this term is in lowercase. The reason is that this technique has evolved during the past few years, breaking the definition of the acronym as is illustrated with the following examples: • Asynchronous? The data exchange between the Web browser and the server can be performed with asynchronous or synchronous communications, depending on the functional needs of the Web application. • XML? Although XML is probably the most utilized format to represent the information in Ajax communications, other lightweight technologies have recently emerged. This is the case of JSON (JavaScript Object Notation), which facilitates the manipulation of data received in the browser. Furthermore, any data like HTML, CSV, TXT, or other formats can be used to carry out Ajax communications. • JavaScript? Ajax still requires JavaScript to work, although some languages such as Python or Ruby have server-side scripting functions to encapsulate the JavaScript call. 9
Slide 12: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT But not all are splendid benefits; Ajax has brought on a few skeptical voices derived by the way in which content is dynamically loaded in Web pages. The two major problems are related to the browser integration after a number of interactions in a Web application using Ajax: • The content cannot be bookmarked because it has been dynamically updated, but the root URL has not changed, meaning that the next time the user accesses the application via the bookmark the content won’t be the same. • For the same reason, the history “Back” button can break a whole Ajax application. The content after a few user interactions might have changed but the root URL is still the same, so if the user clicks on “Back,” instead of going to the previous interaction, it goes back to the previous Web site in the history list. However, most of these problems have been solved by means of JavaScript libraries that provide specific functionality to address these and other browser integration difficulties. Libraries such as Prototype+script.aculo.us, Dojo, Ext, and Yahoo! UI provide commodities and goodies to build cross-browser Rich Internet Applications such as Ajax encapsulations, JavaScript shortcuts, and new interactive Web controls (or Widgets) in order to build fresh and usable Web user interfaces in line with the Web 2.0 style trends. RSS If Ajax meant a spectacular shift in the development of Web applications, RSS is probably the most significant architectural advance of the Web since its early beginnings. This XMLbased technology was primarily conceived as an awareness mechanism by which a user can subscribe to a Web site and be notified of any updates to the information on the site. This is also called syndication. The revolution lies in the fact that content is delivered to the user’s space, turning on its head how content was accessed previously. With this model, the Web user is in control of the information flow and no longer has to actively check for updates. Some authors call this “Self-Service Web” or “Live Web.” RSS as it is understood today stands for four different standards indiscriminately: • Rich Site Summary (RSS 0.91) • RDF Site Summary (RSS 0.9 and 1.0) • Really Simple Syndication • Atom In any case, RSS is mainly being used for pushing out digested or entire blog posts and news (also known as “feeds”) to final users, who can receive these updates in a specialized client called an RSS aggregator. However, this technology has gone a step further, redefining the manner in which the information is distributed and consumed, and opening the way to a new architectural model. Thus, any kind of data (not only blog posts) can be exchanged using this model, meaning that Web applications can provide services in RSS format including data such as stock quotes, weather information, and photo availability [3]. Under this framework, the information is distributed by Web applications and consumed by other Web applications or other agents like Web browsers or RSS aggregators using RSS as the communication channel. 10
Slide 13: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Mash-Ups As scoped out above, the architectural revolution introduced by Web 2.0 by means of technologies like Ajax and RSS has opened the path to a new family of Web-based data integration applications called mashups [18]. The content of a Web mashup application is composed of a combination of different sources of data, always gathered from services offered by other Web applications over the HTTP protocol. This integration approach might look similar to the mechanisms used by other technologies like J2EE under the EAI pattern, but actually it is slightly different. With J2EE, for example, the content of a Web application can also be composed by aggregating different sources of data like databases, MQ or EJB, using communication channels like JDBC, JMS, or JNDI, respectively, and then pulling up this data to the presentation tier. In mashup applications the data is gathered directly from other Web applications (not from back office systems) using standard technologies on top of HTTP and then integrated into one centralized page. Nowadays, Web 2.0 companies such as Flickr, Technorati, eBay, Amazon, and del.icio.us are publicly exposing their data throughout Web services. This is very useful to build mashup applications with content received from disparate systems, using one of the following mechanisms for the integration: Browser-Side Integration: In this scenario, the target Web application provides an HTTP service endpoint designed to return data encoded in a format that can be easily handled by a client-side script, like XML or JSON. Then, the consumer Web application accesses this service to gather the necessary data by means of a JavaScript Ajax call (see Figure 4). Example: Flickr JSON-output services, del.icio.us API (http-auth). However, we are becoming increasingly accustomed to the availability of Web services providing data in RSS format. The problem is that the content delivered by RSS needs to be processed to extract the appropriate pieces of data. The most common ways to do this is via mashup editors (such as Yahoo! Pipes, IBM QEDWiki, or Google Mash-up Editor), which are online tools that make available a set of operations to translate this data into a more manageable format like pure XML or JSON. The other option is using Google Ajax Feed API, which facilitates a JavaScript library to easily work with feeds in the browser side. Example: Any RSS service like Flickr Feeds, del.icio.us feeds. 11
Slide 14: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Web Application 1 Web Application 2 Web Application 3 Web Application 1 Web Application 2 Web Application 3 JSON XML XML RSS RSS RSS Mash-Up Editor JSON JavaScript JavaScript Google API Mash-Up Mash-Up Browser-Side Integration Browser-Side Integration (RSS) Figure 4. Mashup Browser-Side Integration • Server-Side Integration. In this scenario, the target Web application provides an HTTP service endpoint using SOAP or XML-RPC formats for both request and response communications. Then, the target Web application provides an API written in a server-side language like Java, PHP, or C# to facilitate the service call and the result data manipulation (Figure 5). Example: Flickr SOAP-output Services. Web Application 1 Web Application 2 Web Application 3 SOAP XML XML-RPC • Snippets. Content in a Web mashup application can be composed embedding HTML Snippets from other Web applications such as videos, RSS feeds, or instant messaging. Examples: YouTube videos, Google Reader Feeds, and Google Talk. Server API 1 Server API 2 Server API 3 Mash-Up Having said all this, the convergence of Web 2.0 and Server-Side Integration Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) is obvious Figure 5. Mashup Server-Side (Figure 6). The paradigm of SOA provides a Integration methodology, a frame of reference, and a design process to define scalable system architectures founded on services as an interoperability mechanism between distributed components. Under this simple framework, application functionality is delivered as services to either end-user applications or other services [19], leading to a new concept of software called Composite Applications. This new kind of distributed software can be defined as the assembly of multiple SOA components into a new application, usually by means of the combination of different business services deployed in an ESB. 12
Slide 15: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Figure 6. Web 2.0-SOA Convergence [24] Here is where the similarities with mashups arise. On the one hand, and strictly speaking, these Composite Applications do not have to be Web-based; data does not have to be gathered from Web applications, services do not have to be Web services, and the resultant application does not have to be Web-based (can be of any type). On the other hand, everything is Web-based in the Mash-Up world and can be defined as just Web Composite Applications, where the data is provided by Web services in other Web applications. Again, those services are usually business services exposed in an ESB and configured to return data in SOAP, XML, or JSON formats. The concept of Composite Applications is not new; it is linked to the new structural model introduced by SOA roughly a decade ago [21]. Therefore, the innovation introduced by Web 2.0 in the world of SOA is in terms of how these services are provided with new formats such as RSS, and how they are consumed, especially with JavaScript technologies on the browser side. ENTERPRISE WEB 2.0 WHAT IS ENTERPRISE WEB 2.0? Also known as Enterprise 2.0 and coined in September 2006 by Andrew McAfee [25] [26], this term aims to describe a business strategy founded on the adoption of Web 2.0 solutions (social and technological) in the enterprise to solve business challenges. The main objective, besides this, is the enhancement of different strategic areas such as corporate intranets, communications, content management, and knowledge management in order to obtain favorable business results. In other words, Enterprise 2.0 is focused on making the daily work of organizations more productive, efficient, and innovative [27] through Web 2.0 solutions. This way, the often previously inaccessible corporate information is opened up to general discoverability, consumption, and reuse using a Web-based model [30]. Of course, it is not true that Web 2.0 solutions will make our daily work perfectly organized, but they will help us to better express ourselves using a dynamic structure rather than an imposed solution, allowing users to deal with the resulting flood of content [31]. However, according to the results of a Forrester report last year [29], CIOs prefer to purchase a Web 2.0 product suite rather than put together a combination of solutions for blogs, wikis, RSS, and social networking. Companies must be very careful to make sure 13
Slide 16: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT they understand the benefits of the network effects of the new Web and how people can connect to each other, ensuring that these ideas are not wiped out; otherwise, all efforts will have been in vain [27]. Fortunately, we are still at the starting point, totally able to handle how all the pieces of Web 2.0 fit together and ready to embrace these solutions as part of our innovation strategies in our organizations, following a proven track record of successful achievements in the living laboratory of the Internet. THE STATE OF ENTERPRISE WEB 2.0 Until recently, the lack of mature Enterprise Web 2.0 products or solutions, good case studies, and feedback from experiences of early adopters was holding back the acceptance of even corporate pilots of highly promising candidate technologies such as enterprise blogs, wikis, and mashups [27]. However, there is increasing evidence that enterprises are starting to embrace Web 2.0, as reported by many success stories in real companies [34]. In fact, Enterprise Web 2.0 is happening in our organizations right now, either introduced and supported by internal IT departments or brought in the back door by means of regular worker initiatives, such as with the use of internal wikis or blogs. The main problem of letting Enterprise Web 2.0 happen on its own is that duplicated and unsynchronized sources of data may be created; therefore organizations should control these initiatives, enabling an effective environment for them. Figures speak for themselves. Surveys abound and provide quantitative results that can be easily measured, providing a good tool for business analysts to check the real state of Enterprise Web 2.0. The following list presents the most important surveys carried out during the past year by major consultancy companies such as Gartner, Forrester, and McKinsey [37]. • CIO Insight. 50 percent of CIOs (of 150) make use of blogs, wikis, and RSS in a personal context, not within the enterprise [36] (see Figure 7). Web 2.0 Apps CIOs personally use 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 54 49 48 47 39 46 51 52 53 61 67 79 87 88 89 33 21 13 12 11 So ci RS al S Ne So tw or ci ki al ng Bo ok m ar ki ng as hu ps ua lW or ld M s ic ro bl og gi ng Vi rt Bl og s Vi de os W ik is Use Don't Use Figure 7. Ten Web 2.0 Apps CIOs Personally Use The McKinsey Quarterly. A global survey, conducted in January 2007, of 2,847 managers (where 44 percent of them were C-level executives) reported that 75 percent of the queried executives are happy to maintain or increase investments on Web 2.0 solutions in upcoming years [37]. This time, the report focused not on the use of these tools by CIOs but how CIOs are investing in Web 2.0 (see Figure 8). The results look 14 M No ne
Slide 17: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT somewhat different, being the most important figures presented throughout the following figures. Is your company investing in any of the following Web 2.0 technologies or tools? Using or planning to use Mash-Ups {n=1046} Blogs {n=2431} Wikis {n=1705} Podcasts {n=2325} RSS {n=1755} Social Netw orking {n=2713} Collective Intelligence {n=1987} Web Services {n=2615} 0 Not under consideration 54 21 43 32 39 33 40 35 42 35 39 37 26 48 6 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Figure 8. Current Investments in Web 2.0 However, for those who have invested in Web 2.0, the level of satisfaction looks quite positive. Although the question has been designed to evaluate the investment in Web 2.0 over the past 5 years, which is quite a wide window for these kinds of technologies, results have been elegantly divided into early adopters and fast followers (see Figure 9). How satisfied are you with your company's financial ROI in Web 2.0 over the past 5 years? 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Very Satisfied Satisfied Early Adopters Fast Followers Neutral Late Followers Disatisfied Figure 9. Level of Satisfaction for Web 2.0 ROI As for financial analysis, findings vary, as we see from reading analyses by two major market research firms, Radicati [38] and Gartner [39]. On the one hand, Radicati’s view of the Enterprise Web 2.0 marketplace indicates that business social software will be nearly $1 billion strong in 2007 and roughly $3.3 billion by 2011. On the other hand, Gartner’s market analysis states that Enterprise Web 2.0 will grow from $226 million in 2007 to $707 million by 2011. Regardless of which figures are accurate, they make it clear that Web 2.0 solutions are beginning to be embraced by enterprises, investments are in place, and ROIs depend on how this strategy is incorporated by the organization to solve real business problems. After all, we are just now living the prefaces of Enterprise Web 2.0 and we have a long road ahead. Success stories will continue to emerge, as well as the first frustration stories. Therefore, executives high in the management line are not going to make significant deals 15
Slide 18: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT with Enterprise Web 2.0 without good information on ROI, trying to mitigate any risk exposures. As introduced above, this lack of confidence is mostly driven by the fact that the adoption of this strategy is not supported by proper business case studies. In the following section (and throughout the rest of this paper), a deep analysis is presented on why Enterprise Web 2.0 solutions should be embraced as a corporate strategy, while making sure that we generally understand how to apply them properly to obtain good returns on our investment in them [27]. WHY WEB 2.0? The exciting achievements of Web 2.0, such as the boom of user-generated content, online collaboration channels, quick self-service information discovery, and collective intelligence stories, are without doubt outcomes that many would like to replicate within our companies [33]. Enterprise Web 2.0 solutions, due to their fundamental nature, provoke a cultural shift that is easy for enterprises to embrace, as they don’t require much user training, thanks in part to the widespread acceptance they have gained in the Internet community in recent years. Figures 10 and 11 present the evolution of Web 2.0 in terms of search volumes in Google since 2004, giving an overview of the level of maturity of these tools. Figure 10. Google Trends Showing Evolution of Web 2.0 Figure 11. Google Trends Showing Evolution of Web 2.0 Enablers For about a decade, companies have been providing employees with valuable Web-based communication channels such as e-mail, instant messaging, and document repositories across the organization. The main problem with these technologies is that the corporate information exchanged via these channels is not accessible and consultable by others, and it does not form part of the huge ongoing work happening on the Web [31]. Apart from that, 16
Slide 19: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT the existing Web-based corporate communication mechanisms are obsolete and do not provide an open place for collaboration between employees. With Web 2.0, employees can be concerned only about the content and not about the work of putting it on the Web [32]. These new communication tools provide new collaboration channels for workers to insert their voices into the organization, helping to generate more persistent corporate information globally accessible by others. This is nothing new, as we have seen recent remedies for this problem that are more or less successful. However, Web 2.0 solutions seem to provide all the essential ingredients needed to succeed in the enterprise; they have been summarized in a mnemonic formulated by Andrew McAfee as follows [31] (see Figure 12). For all these reasons, we know that Web 2.0 can provide great profits to companies. However, enterprises don’t have to embrace these solutions just because they are cool, are on top of Gartner’s hype cycle peak of inflated expectations, or are driven by widespread adoption in the current Web panorama. Companies do not work the same way the Internet community does, and a model that is working out there could fail miserably in the enterprise context. Therefore, companies should do a deep “soul search” to strictly analyze how an Enterprise Web 2.0 strategy should be incorporated into their organizations and in which business area(s) the benefits of Web 2.0 can be fully harnessed. There are basically two ways Figure 12. Key Features of of gaining profits from Web 2.0: direct or strategic, and Web 2.0 Solutions [27] indirect or tactical. Therefore, and according to the conclusions based on the information presented in this paper thus far, the best approach for embracing Web 2.0 in the enterprise context is a tactical solution in the field of knowledge management. The subsequent sections will analyze business benefits, pros and cons, security concerns, governance, and legal regulations derived from the adoption of new Web solutions within the organization. 17
Slide 20: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT BUSINESS CASE STUDY: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 2.0 PRINCIPLES OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT The problem of how to retain and use knowledge has been a topic of major attention in recent decades, especially in organizations, companies, and universities. They sought to establish a new discipline to manage knowledge by means of identification, creation, representation, and distribution between knowledge users. In the enterprise context, knowledge management programs are usually tied to organizational objectives, determined to achieve specific outcomes such as improved performance, general development of collaborative practices, and, above all, increased competitive advantage [41]. Therefore, a collection of principles can be designed to help organizations define their knowledge management strategy [42] [43]: • Share what you know. We will share what we know with our colleagues. • Learn and help others learn. We will learn from the experiences of other colleagues and take time to help our colleagues learn, teaching each other. • Engage in conversation. We will encourage open and rigorous dialogue, discuss and exploring assumptions, and speak our mind respectfully. • Avoid reinventing the wheel. We shall see if what we are about to embark on has been done before rather than create things from scratch. • Borrow ideas and use them. We will borrow ideas shamelessly (with attribution) and not suffer the “not invented here” syndrome. • Failure is learning. We will take time to learn from our successes and failures. • Actively participate. We will promote cooperation, trust, and active participation in project teams, task forces, and networks. • Discover new perspectives. We shall actively look outside our discipline in search of ideas, concepts, and approaches that can be adapted and applied to meet our goals. • Recognize and celebrate. We will recognize others for their intellectual effort and willingly share the kudos. • Be storytellers and listeners. We will encourage one another to tell and listen to our stories. Along with these principles, a corporate knowledge management model is always made up of other enabler technologies such as Knowledge Bases and Expert Systems, roles like subject matter experts (SME) or Knowledge Workers, and processes like Knowledge Transfer. In the following sections we will see how these traditional components can be consonant with the new model introduced by Web 2.0 solutions. INTRODUCING KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 2.0 The next major evolution in the way the enterprise manages its collective knowledge is well under way, whether enterprises realize it or not. If it is not shared, it gets lost seems to be the core principle driving companies to embrace new Web technologies as the key to more 18
Slide 21: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT effective management of corporate knowledge. This way, today’s corporate knowledge workers have an array of resources and tools available to help with their daily tasks, collaborate, and share knowledge by means of Web 2.0–style information capture and distribution channels (see Figure 13). Content Management Figure 13. Knowledge Management 2.0 Model The real issue is that although the problem of leveraging knowledge in companies cannot be fully eradicated, the use of better management strategies can partially mitigate this problem. First, we need to focus on where the knowledge resides—that is, in people with significant insight, facts, solutions to common problems, and other tacit experiences [30]. These people are used to working in virtual teams, so traditional knowledge management solutions are not appropriate, as they don’t provide a context—a network—to connect these knowledge workers, which means that participants cannot achieve the greatest benefit of the knowledge provided by these experts. This is because traditional knowledge management keys on looking for concrete IT solutions such as corporate portals, workplaces, or document repositories—rigid and complex-featured environments aimed at capturing knowledge in the form of documents or attachments, which causes frustration [40]. This first generation of knowledge management went wrong because there wasn’t any management; it was more like capturing knowledge in unstructured repositories and putting access control mechanisms in place, using concrete IT solutions or products. Additionally, for many, the mere idea of publishing information fully accessible across the organization via a Web browser could look innovative, but truly file attachments in document repositories are not a good substitute for personal knowledge [40]. Moreover, in the case of slide presentations, the summarized, poorly annotated style makes knowledge transfer even more difficult. As a solution, experts have recognized a new wave of knowledge management based on emerging Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs, wikis, RSS, and social networking. These solutions do not attempt to replace personal knowledge; they provide mechanisms to better structure this knowledge, making it more effective and available to others. These techniques can be exercised within the enterprise to conceive a second generation of knowledge management (KM 2.0, if you like), more concentrated on social networks and the flow of knowledge between the people in them by means of publishing, subscribing, and collaborating, which is more inviting than searching, involving more tagging than categorizing. This second generation of KM puts IT solutions in the background and 19
Slide 22: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT focuses on people, promoting the participation of knowledge workers, who will be more willing to share and innovate using tools they already know and like. Technologies such as blogs, wikis, RSS, social bookmarking, and mashup applications offer high technical value and enough flexibility to be consonant with enterprise needs in terms of knowledge management oriented to social networks. As CSC’s colleague James Dellow states [40], “if we stop considering these technologies from an information management perspective and instead treat them as an enabler for knowledge management, there is shift of focus from just Content Management to considering other dimensions and domains where they can add value: for communication, collaboration and awareness.” Thus, Content Management systems such as corporate intranets, designed to organize and present information to users through a Web browser, can be boosted by these three domains to enable a real and more effective knowledge management approach. These domains introduced by new Web 2.0 tools and technologies are what experts have been waiting for, for decades, to build an effective KM strategy. First, they help generate a richer context around the information that becomes almost as valuable as the information itself. Second, they provide an interconnection channel between users to make this knowledge flow in a more comfortable and effective manner. In the rest of this document, we discuss some of the background, strategies, and opportunities this evolution to Knowledge Management 2.0 is bringing to corporate knowledge workers and their organizations, as well as some of the implications and challenges. BUSINESS IMPACTS OF KM 2.0: BENEFITS Generally speaking, one of the major benefits of Enterprise Web 2.0 applied to knowledge management is that corporate knowledge is open and globally visible on a wider scale. But while executives are always expecting big, immediate wins and high returns after an investment, the benefits of this new strategy for knowledge management are usually a continuous, linear buildup and almost never sudden and pronounced [27]. This is driven by the fact that the ultimate objective of this strategy is to improve the knowledge of employees, something that is hardly measurable but still very valuable. Then, the effects of KM 2.0 should be measured by direct impacts on business outcomes (e.g., business efficiency or competitive advantage), and not only by ROI, which is more suitable for tangible assets. Therefore, Enterprise Web 2.0 for knowledge management is not a question of “how to save money” but a question of “how to stop losing money.” Hence, if we want to measure the social benefits of KM 2.0 and check out how positively or negatively whether it is working in our organization, we need to focus on the core value— that is, the network effects. For this purpose we can use more representative tools like social network analysis (SNA), which provides a collection of methods to measure the relationships and flows between any information- or knowledge-processing entities in a social network. Elements such as degrees between-ness and closeness can provide significant insights that might help us understand how knowledge is flowing between members of the social network. The IBM Research Center at Watson has carried out research on this topic, defining SNA as follows: Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a set of methods and statistics that reveals the hidden connections that are important for sharing information, decision-making, and innovation. The outcome of an SNA helps us to see where collaboration is breaking down, where talent 20
Slide 23: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT and expertise could be better leveraged, where decisions are getting bogged down or where opportunities for innovation are being lost. The data give us the picture we need to create a set of remedial actions for individuals and leaders to improve productivity, efficiency and innovation [44]. In this manner, SNA, in combination with ROI, can produce outcomes that are an excellent barometer to measure the benefits of Enterprise Web 2.0 for knowledge management in terms of social capital, providing managers with a clear picture of how employees are working together so managers can act upon these results. As CSC colleagues Jim Petrassi and Sharon Whitaker state in their article, “Strategic Innovation and the Impact on Collaboration Technologies” [45], “many leading companies are using SNA tools and techniques to identify the ‘go-to’ experts, find technical knowledge and expertise, identify obstacles to collaboration, develop knowledge transfer programs and develop targeted team building programs.” As introduced in the first section of this paper, social software in the enterprise is aimed at boosting collaboration and participation among knowledge workers, helping to create a social network in which knowledge can flow more efficiently between participants. Dion Hinchcliffe, in his blog, reported a list of benefits of social media in the workplace [28]. This list is not intentionally focused on the knowledge management discipline, but we can use it here to summarize the main profits of the new KM 2.0 strategy: • More ad hoc collaboration between employees who can find each other’s work and team together. We know that social networks are one of the core values of this new generation of knowledge management. Profiling systems are more than just an effective communication channel; they are a mechanism to find, identify, and record information directly from knowledge workers and experts by means of surfing a public directory in which everybody makes their own interests and knowledge connections known. Many companies are looking at open social networking services such as Facebook or LinkedIn as the next corporate intranet systems, in which people can create their professional profiles and connect with each other. But while the benefits of this approach are many, the risks and issues inherent to this solution are preventing many firms from enabling their intranets via an open service. • More globally persistent, discoverable business information is made available over time. Wikis are a clear example of persistent, reusable knowledge bases. The availability of wiki technology internally within the enterprise is an important tool in the modern corporate collaborative toolbox, as it provides knowledge workers with a flexible environment in which they can document and share knowledge and ideas, always with the ability to relate topics with others through the wiki’s inherent link functionality. A complex matrix of related information can be built up quickly, providing the enterprise with a valuable source of searchable and easily maintainable knowledge. • Social media tends to capture more institutional knowledge that is reusable. This effect is particularly strong in the blogging community, which is highly self-referential, with bloggers paying attention to other bloggers and amplifying their visibility and power [3]. This link-structured information discovery mechanism can result not in replacing the enterprise portal search engine but in improving it, thanks to the network created by means of links between bloggers. 21
Slide 24: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT • A deep hyperlink infrastructure begins to form, built continuously by workers using social tools to forge links, making business information more discoverable. Using social bookmarking systems within the enterprise is just a new form of discovering and gaining knowledge in a very comfortable fashion, by means of timely sharing of information among team members. Today, a colleague may pass along links to content I find valuable or mention someone else in the organization who may have information of use to me. But, give knowledge workers a social bookmarking tool, and immediately they will highlight for others the content they consider of value. Over time, employees will discover other members of the organization with similar interests working on similar projects, with valuable knowledge that employees were previously unaware of. When an employee leaves the company, the references he or she has built up can remain for the benefit of others. • More efficient access to information as more business information becomes available internally and externally via syndication. Communication and awareness mechanisms such as RSS help move knowledge within the enterprise, from knowledge worker to knowledge worker, delivering collaborated content stored in knowledge bases. The synchronization is also a fundamental point: Users can get updated information whenever they want and wherever they want. With RSS, content can be delivered to the final user (this direction of flow is very important) on any device, such as desktop and Web-based RSS aggregators, mobile phones, and PDAs. Facilitating knowledge workers with updated content from other knowledge workers is one of the fundamental management elements necessary to build up an effective KM strategy. • Tagging and other emergent organization methods allow business information to be organized and cross-referenced from every point of view. Using folksonomies instead of rigid taxonomies helps create dynamic, emergent structures that are more socially focused; that is, content is not categorized under the criteria of a few system administrators, but categorized by the criteria of many users. This helps people discover content in an easier, more usable way. • Potentially higher levels of innovation and productivity as more previously unavailable enterprise thinking is available to be accessed, repurposed, and built upon. As introduced earlier, wikis in the workplace are an excellent Web space where everybody contributes content on top of each other’s content. This powerful collaboration tool allows people to get in and be aware of content created by others or content previously created by one user and augmented by the knowledge of other experts. • Increased efficiency in conversations: Social media scales up to mostly resource and time-friendly conversations among thousands of asynchronous participants, yet excludes those uninterested in them, unlike e-mail distribution lists and conference calls. Therefore, we have a situation in which the enterprise is involved in public discussion and exchange of information and opinions. What we are saying here is that the power of blogs is in the conversation they are able to promote, where public, company-approved blogs provide a reach far beyond many more conventional methods. The value for the enterprise is in what it can gain from this conversation, and its ability to innovate and act upon what it learns as a result. How can this be further leveraged within the enterprise? Simple: Just bring it inside the firewall. Provide knowledge workers with the ability to collaborate using the same toolset they are already using on the Internet. Colleagues in other locations, working with other clients, have no way of accessing this 22
Slide 25: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT without knowing who that person is. Via a colleague’s blog, they can quickly take advantage by engaging in productive and efficient conversation. • Additionally, Jakob Nielsen explains in one of his articles [48] why social networking and communities are quite suitable for corporate intranets: • Employees are already a community sharing one fundamental objective, which is to succeed in business. Participation in Internet communities usually follows the 90:9:1 rule of participation inequality: 90 percent of users do not contribute and are just consumers, 9 percent contribute from time to time, and only 1 percent participates a lot. This behavior is hardly replicable in the enterprise context, where small groups of people who know each other are less susceptible to pass the time being unoccupied. As LinkedIn’s default invitation message reads, the trust between participants is the fundamental principle for making networks work. • The quality of intranet contributions is high, since employees are evaluated and then hired, as opposed to on the Web, where there is no filter on Web users and many contributions are poor. Furthermore, intranet users care about their reputation among colleagues and managers, so these contributions are mainly productive instead of destructive. The benefits of Knowledge Management 2.0 are wide-ranging, thanks to the inherent openness of the new Web 2.0-style applications. Thus, there can be more applications than just blogs and wikis created out of the SLATES pattern introduced my McAfee. Platforms such as Yahoo! Answers provide a new collaboration model in which everybody can raise their hands to get their questions answered, or help others by answering their requests. This model can be embraced by organizations as a new ask-the-expert mechanism, where the expertise relies on the whole crowd of workers. Furthermore, systems such as Twitter are breaking the line of traditional communication and instant messaging, by means of sharing short messages indicating what the user is doing at one particular moment, and making this information available via Web or SMS. The benefits in the enterprise are obvious, as you can realize what other people are doing in the organization at that moment, learning new things from and about them. Finally, it is important to stress that the management term embedded in the concept of KM focuses on leveraging as much knowledge as possible to the participants of a given community, both whoever and wherever they are. Obviously, one of the most important advancements of Web 2.0 in terms of technologies is the ability to provide new formats for Web services that are easier to create and consume, like RSS. This way, enterprise Web 2.0 services can deliver corporate knowledge in a format of Web services that can be consumed by any device in a very comfortable way. Under this new collaboration scenario, we realize that in the traditional knowledge management practices barriers were imposed by rigid IT products or solutions. With Web 2.0 solutions, barriers are imposed only by the collaboration wishes of the knowledge workers. BUSINESS IMPACTS OF KM 2.0: RISKS As introduced earlier, Enterprise Web 2.0 is beginning to be widely adopted by organizations on a global scale—though the resulting stories are not all stories about profits and success. Firm owners must be aware that social software comes with a series of risks that might be counterproductive for the organization and produce unexpected, poor business 23
Slide 26: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT results. Again, Dion Hinchcliffe presents the main issues of Enterprise Web 2.0 in the following list [28]: • Productivity: Users employing social media tools for nonproductive purposes such as socializing. Employees may spend too much time investing in their corporate social capital, posting news in their corporate blogs or making contributions to organizational wikis to the detriment of their actual work assignments. Workers not properly managing their time could directly affect project success. Of course, this is a well-known issue that many companies have dealt with for decades, when employees spend too much time surfing the Web or engaging in nonproductive tasks. The appropriate amount of time invested depends of the role of the knowledge worker; workers focused on strong research activities, for example, should definitely share their experiences with their colleagues, helping them gain valuable knowledge. However, risk still exists when these contributions are poor or do not provide additional value; therefore, companies need to make sure they have everything under control. • Security: Information that should be under tight control appearing publicly via social media, either accidentally or intentionally. This is one of the main risks of the culture of sharing promoted by Web 2.0 social software. Employees need to be very careful they do not reveal confidential information about the company’s or customers’ strategic or tactical plans when they communicate with other employees via the Web. This is also an issue when workers have their own blogs outside the enterprise firewall. To avoid problematic situations, companies need to be sure to educate their employees about these risks and any possible penalties associated with them. • Control: The level of control over what appears on an organization’s intranet will decrease with the rise in use of social media, for better or worse. While more employees will have the opportunity to raise their voice over the Intranet with social software, this means that more people need to review information that might be inaccurate, inappropriate, or illegal, to prevent any possible damage to the company’s image. Some content cannot be permitted, so companies must enable a strong peer review mechanism to make sure these issues do not exceed the benefits previously presented. Of course, these issues can also occur with e-mail communications; the main difference is that blogs can be viewed by a larger audience. • Outcomes: Ensuring that social media tools generate predefined, specific goals is difficult when the extremely freeform platforms of social media can be used for many things. Companies need to understand the purposes of Enterprise Web 2.0 social software and be sure the benefits are not negated. Uses of tools such as blogs, wikis, social networking services, and social bookmarking applications within the enterprise are wide-ranging, so organizations need to stop and think about what they should be used for. Especially in the field of knowledge management, the primary purpose is clear: to try to leverage as much knowledge as possible from employee to employee using online communication channels. With an understanding of the purposes, companies should take action when the tools are not being used for the right purposes. • Another Silo: Currently social media is primarily a consumer-side invention, like many aspects of Web 2.0. Consequently, most enterprise blogs and wikis don’t have good access to feeds of enterprise data, which can encourage cut-and-paste publishing of information from traditional enterprise IT systems into social media, creating another silo of data. Enterprise social software is gaining momentum and is being embraced by 24
Slide 27: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT large organizations to improve results in concrete business areas such as knowledge management. However, companies already have existing systems that (effectively or not) are ready to be used by employees. As a result, enterprise social software needs to cohabitate with existing intranet solutions during a transitional period, which can be during the pilot phase. For this reason, it is important for companies to understand the purpose of these tools and not become overly concerned with trying to obtain quick ROI by moving content from existing systems to these new ones. A better scenario would be to use these tools to create more “live” or “innovative” content by any employee. After a review period during which these ideas mature, they can be pulled to the old repositories as more “official” or “contrasted” content to be officially shared with the whole organization. • Not enterprise-ready. Many executives do not feel confident to start investing in Web 2.0 for their companies, in part due to the lack of knowledge and case studies, a light hierarchical model, and a big fear of reviving past painful experiences [47]. Furthermore, as Jakob Nielsen writes [48], Web 2.0 can be dangerous when systems and applications focus on over-hyped technology developments with ideas that “either hurt users or simply don’t matter to users’ core needs.” BUSINESS IMPACTS OF KM 2.0: SECURITY If we talk about embracing Web 2.0 solutions behind the firewall, we have to consider the security concerns of this decision. Thus, it is absolutely elementary to adopt architectural security mechanisms such as proxies, firewalls, SSL, and credentials authentication, especially when accessing resources across the organization. In the more physical layer, proxies and firewalls are configured to filter, deny, or permit network data, providing controlled access according to the organization’s security policies, which is good when we are working connected to the company’s network. But what happens if we want to access our corporate blogs, wikis, or bookmarks outside this network, and still want the ability to safeguard access? Under this scenario, we need to implement a protection instrument in the protocol layer based on authentication, authorization, and encryption: • By means of authentication, we are asking the user who is requesting our resource to provide user credentials, usually in the form of name and password. There are two security levels of user validation: basic and digest, being one of the most strict authentication formulas. • Once we know who the requester is, we need to verify if he or she is authorized to access the content being requested. • Finally, all the network traffic needs to be encrypted using SSL, so that all the data interchanging between client and server will not be captured by a malicious user watching the network traffic with some kind of sniffer (see Figure 14). 25
Slide 28: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Encryption Authentication Figure 14. Security Filters for Corporate Social Software In addition to these three security filters, the user of RSS feeds deserves special mention. Some RSS aggregators in the market are Web bases (such as Google Reader), but more often they are desktop-based applications, shipped with page preview and Web navigation built-in features. These are not Web browsers and most of them are not fully ready to surf the Web, even if they have the ability to implement authentication mechanisms, and the Web site is prepared with authorization controls, and the Web traffic is encrypted with SSL. They might have security vulnerabilities that real Web browsers such as Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox have already fixed, increasing the possibility of attacks. Consequently, if we are using a desktop-based RSS aggregator, it is strongly recommended to first open feeds in the trusted Web browser of choice, and second, to not post private data via the aggregator. Otherwise, a Web-based RSS aggregator (with authentication facilities) should be used. We have covered several security scenarios so far, but what if we want open access to our corporate blogs or wikis from the Internet, without user authentication and authorization, just like IBM does? In this case, we have to take into account a new form of attack: the comment spam, which is produced when spambots are able to fill and submit forms. This type of spam is used as an attack to degrade the quality of service (QoS) of a given system, due to the abuse of resources. Unlike e-mail spam, there is no truly reliable and effective solution to this problem, although the most commonly used solution seems to be getting the user to prove they are a real person by means of CAPTCHA. This is a restriction mechanism that works by asking the user to type into a text field the text they see in a blurred picture (making the image resistant to optical character recognition [OCR]) or by asking the commenter to key in the result of solving a rudimentary arithmetic operation. If the test is passed, it means that the comment is being introduced by a person and is posted to the server; otherwise, the comment will not be submitted. However, many spambots have evolved in a way that they can pass this test without using OCR. Another solution is using Negative CAPTCHA; instead of proving that the user submitting the form is a person, this practice focuses on proving that the comment is being posted by a spambot. This method uses an extra text field that is hidden from the user. When a human fills out the comment form, they don’t see the extra field so it remains blank, but when filled out by a spambot, the bot doesn’t know the field is supposed to be hidden, so it adds a dummy value and submits the form. A server-based task will recognize that the hidden field is not blank, will know that the comment has been submitted by a bot, and will ignore the post. 26 Authorization Blog Firewall
Slide 29: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT BUSINESS IMPACTS OF KM 2.0: GOVERNANCE From a legal standpoint, organizations implementing enterprise social software must keep in mind any legal risks associated with employees’ collaborations. Therefore, given the rush to create corporate content, below is a list of key points aimed at regulating corporate collaboration. Although this list was originally conceived for corporate blogging, it can be leveraged for all social software [49]: • Define a precise policy on workers’ contributions to enterprise social media, especially where executive employees are involved. Corporate blog posts may contain references to the company, sometimes harmless but other times inappropriate or impertinent, and might involve the company in legal litigations (e.g., personal disputes, revealing too much information about internal strategies, denigrating the company or customers). • Be sure all employees are trained on the basics according to this corporate policy, being aware of all applicable regulations when collaborating in social software and the consequences of not following the rules, which can result in damaging the company’s image or major legal issues, even when employees use a disclaimer. • Establish a timely peer-based, decentralized review process to monitor employee’s contributions to assure they comply with corporate policy, and take actions when evidence of infringement is identified. • Promote collaboration so that enterprise social software can be up to date and refreshed with new information, helping to maintain interest among employees. • Keep in mind privacy and information security laws. The company’s policy must indicate how much personal information can be published via contributions to enterprise social software. • Keep in mind intellectual property laws. The use of protected footage may cause legal issues for the company due to intellectual property violations. • Keep in mind any security laws and legal risks associated with making misstatements that could have direct influence on the company’s stock price, involve the organization in security fraud issues (for example, under SOX or Rule 10b-5; 2) or expose trade secrets. • If corporate social software is restricted to employees and customers only, be sure they are trained under the regulations of the corporate policy. On the other hand, if it is open to the Internet, make sure visitors read and accept this policy. These legal regulations are aimed at controlling the contributions made by employees to corporate social software. However, in this field of regulations and legal restrictions, there are additional concerns that must be considered by organizations in order to implement an Enterprise Web 2.0 strategy. For instance, many firms are beginning to use open social networking services such as MySpace or Facebook as part of their corporate intranets, probably motivated by the null costs of implementation and deployment, but forgetting about the security issues this approach could raise. Below are three major reasons why these open services must not be used as intranet tools. • Security. As it is stated in [50], the use of these services as corporate intranets must be restricted by two factors: corporate information security and individual privacy. Although these services provide users with strong security features, they have not been 27
Slide 30: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT designed for business purposes. Companies do not want their delicate organizational information to be openly published without having ultimate control over who can access that information, since that information is not hosted behind the corporate firewall. In any case, many supporters claim that users can only learn the name of your company and not much more, as long as you don’t store private documents in the service. • Not enterprise ready. These free services have not been designed to be used as corporate tools and lack enterprise core features, notably integration with other organizational intranet tools. Users can’t make the most of them in an enterprise context; most of the applications for Facebook are too frivolous (e.g., Vampires) and almost none of them are suitable for business purposes. • Identity issues. Many employees already using open social networking services for personal purposes are not willing to share their personal identities (they probably contain too much personal information) with co-workers or customers. Consequently, these people will likely create a professional alter-user for business activities only. This is just the opposite of what Web 2.0 is promoting—that is, a unique e-identity for each person (e.g., OpenID), globally recognized through the person’s connections and contributions. BUSINESS IMPACTS OF KM 2.0: BEST PRACTICES The first conclusions about the adoption of Enterprise Web 2.0 tools are beginning to materialize after a substantial number of real stories, pioneer reports, and anecdotes. Companies need to drill into these results to learn from the lessons of other organizations and create a best practices table that can be used as a reference to build a better Enterprise Web 2.0 strategy. For instance, real story results have been studied by Andrew McAfee, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, who has created the following chart (Figure 15) to describe how Enterprise Web 2.0 is being adopted by organizations[51], identifying the segments of acceptance. Figure 15. The Empty Quarter of Enterprise Web 2.0 Adoption According to this chart, there are two defined groups that are quickly using these tools. The first group is the “newbies,” young people who have recently graduated, have joined a company with strong Web literacy, and are used to socializing and collaborating with Web 2.0. The second group is the “Techies,” the day-to-day researchers and adopters of nextbreed technologies, whatever they are. Outside these two groups is a clearly defined third group of nonadopting employees in the upper right section of the chart, which can be called the “empty quarter,” for people who are unlikely to use these tools. 28
Slide 31: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Why is this group of nonadopters important? It is not realistic to expect full adoption of new technologies in the enterprise, so why do companies need to put special attention on this quarter? The main reason is that employees belonging to this segment hold the greater amount of corporate knowledge, expertise, and experience. Companies need to encourage these knowledge workers to use Web 2.0 tools so their communications, collaborations, and connections are openly accessible and globally shared across the whole organization, thus managing knowledge in a more effective way. For these reasons, a culture change is needed to encourage knowledge workers to use these new tools. This shift should be based on a collection of best practices aimed at building guidelines to protect and help employees using enterprise social software. There are many public recommendations and initiatives in the blogosphere (apart from private research) that can be used to create corporate guidelines for Enterprise Web 2.0 tools. Below is a list of the most useful resources. • Blogging Success Study, Northeastern University [52]. This research states that the key ingredients for successful corporate blogging are culture, transparency, time, dialogue, and entertaining writing style. • IBM corporate blogging policy and guidelines [53]. Created by IBM bloggers contributing to a corporate wiki, these guidelines are designed to protect both employees and the firm when employees formally enter the blogosphere. • Sun Microsystems corporate blogging guidelines [54]. • Microsoft blogging guidelines for the MSN Live Search blog [55]. Based on the IE team blog and the Corporate Weblog Manifesto by Microsoft’s Robert Scoble. • Yahoo! personal blog guidelines [56]. SUMMARY: SWOT ANALYSIS To summarize the business implications introduced in the past few sections, below is an analysis by CSC employees who contributed to the CSC Wiki Beta to generate a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) table about the main benefits and risks of social networking in the enterprise [57]. Again, this was originally conceived from a general point of view for “social networks behind the firewall,” but the results can be leveraged to evaluate the benefits of Enterprise Web 2.0 tools for knowledge management. Social Networking in the Enterprise STRENGTHS Organization Perspective Reduces lead times by making stronger and faster connections. Improves quality of work by making connections to the “right people.” Leverages and strengthens informal networks of contacts within and beyond the organization. Facilitates connections between people who would otherwise be difficult to reach cross company, cross function or cross hierarchy (junior to senior). Improves trust between individuals and teams. Improves teamwork by means of new communication channels. Agile expertise connections and expertise flow: Promotes innovation by making it easier to make contact with people of diverse backgrounds. Helps identify and develop technical and cultural organizational trends. Employee Perspective Increases ad hoc collaboration between knowledge workers, who can play team roles more easily. Increases a sense of belonging and connection to “people like me.” Allows employees with similar skills, experience, and interests to discover each other and share. 29
Slide 32: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Lower barriers (technical and social) to entry for participation/contributions. WEAKNESSES Organization Perspective • Informal network may challenge the formal command-and-control structure: – People with time may dominate the discussion, obscuring people with less time but more valuable contributions. – Subverts the normal chain-of-command communication model, thus subverting some key hierarchical communication, prioritization, and direction mechanisms. – Lack of control of information flow. – Ability for counter-management opinions to gain support. • Participants have access to unofficial perspectives or opinions: – Individual voices may dominate the official message. – Some voices may be inappropriate, breaking ethics, contractual obligations, or even the law. • Participation may be skewed by demographics of the organization. • Requires a corporate understanding of the “lack” of structure and discipline. Employee Perspective • Some employees may not participate well: – May feel alienated – May not have time to make their voice heard above the chatter • Sharing knowledge adds more work (“I don’t have time to share”). • Tracking the chatter is time-consuming and disruptive. OPPORTUNITIES • Could be harvested to identify: – Hidden experts – Key staff – Bottlenecks or broken processes – Areas of uncertainty that require investment or clarification – New business opportunities • Improves employee retention by promoting the importance of a person’s network rather than a person’s knowledge, as networks are more difficult to “take with you.” • New business processes could be created that make the organization more responsive. • Could be leveraged to open up integration and links to new customers and suppliers. • Could be used for grassroots marketing. • Increased corporatewide collaboration. • Improved motivation through employees feeling they have more open communication channels and opportunities to participate in initiatives. THREATS • • • • • • • Release of confidential information. Damage to company image. Regulatory compliance considerations. Lack of employee maturity vis-a-vis personal risk of sharing knowledge. Service levels become an issue as services become embedded in business practice. A lot of time could be wasted. Knowledge work could become even more difficult to control, measure, and automate as it becomes dependent on ad hoc networks of people outside the formal organizational structures. CSC ENTERPRISE WEB 2.0 INTRODUCTION TO CSC KM PROCESSES AND INFRASTRUCTURES Over the years, knowledge management has become a fundamental discipline for companies in the race to gain competitive advantages. CSC has established a series of strategies and processes aimed at making effective use of knowledge between all employees. The most important implications for CSC in the field of knowledge management are listed below. • CSC Knowledge Program (CKP). The CKP governs the application of knowledge management practices within the company, providing employees and customers with tools to build and leverage knowledge. Thus, CSC has included knowledge sharing 30
Slide 33: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT within its own culture in primary business processes and infrastructures such as the CSC Portal, a knowledge environment that facilitates collaboration across the company and with clients. • CSC Knowledge Communities and Workplaces. Part of the intranet portal (which will be reviewed in the next section), communities are Web spaces in which groups of CSC employees across the globe can connect, collaborate, and share knowledge around today’s leading business topics, helping to develop new ideas and transform them into client solutions. • GIS Global Knowledge Management Process and Procedure. The KM process details how any tool and service should operate to manage knowledge. The procedure is a lowlevel, detailed document, showing operational roles and workflows used in the GIS division against a tool to deliver a live service. • Customer Offerings. CSC has a product portfolio for knowledge management solutions for customers. Examples of these product offerings are tools such as Smart WorkPlace and e-KMNet, global solutions being provided to our customers. However, it looks like these processes and infrastructures are part of the first generation of knowledge management that failed miserably to achieve its goals of building and leveraging knowledge between groups of people. Knowledge management needs to evolve, with strategies focused more on people rather than tools and processes, which are the means to achieve the goal but are not the goal itself. Web 2.0 social software provides a perfect mechanism to help create and leverage knowledge by means of collaborations and connections between employees. CSC should look at this as part of the company’s next generation of corporate knowledge management. OVERVIEW OF CSC KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITIES AND WORKPLACES Through the CSC Portal, CSC professionals from all over the world share ideas and experiences, collaborating on business and technology topics. Using various collaboration tools, CSCers have instant access to seasoned experts and knowledge bases of best practices, which supports reusing knowledge and leveraging intellectual capital. The CSC Portal provides access to KM environments such as Knowledge Communities and Workplaces, which are by far the most important aspect of CSC’s knowledge environment. The following list analyzes weaknesses of the tools used to implement these systems, exposing the reasons why they need to shift to the Web 2.0 style. • Lack of innovation space. Web tools used to implement Communities in the CSC Portal provide the ability to create dynamic content but only for those members with administrative privileges. The structures are too rigid and don’t allow regular users to produce online outcomes, like new pages, categorized links, or conversations with other members. That is, they can’t innovate and share their knowledge in a proactive way. Emerging user structures in the form of user-tagged content do not have their place in these communities. • Lack of network. Community members are too silo’ed. You can discover who the members of a given community are, and with a bit of luck you can learn some facts about them if the community facilitators created a profile for them. The problem is that these profiles do not have a global scope. There is no global directory on top of these 31
Slide 34: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT communities that enables social networking (CSC Global Profile Manager does not have networking capabilities), so you can’t connect and learn from them. • Lack of KM. Every so often, there is no knowledge and there is no management in communities; there is only information in the form of file attachments or impersonal pages without human value and context. Apart from that, the lack of management is obvious, as regular members can hardly create new content with knowledge, and the channels of distribution are poor, not only to community members but to all employees. There is no self-service content and no services in RSS or Atom formats, newsletters are still coming via e-mail only, and the ability to access communities with mobile devices is still an issue. • Lack of conversation. Discussion spaces within knowledge communities are not real online conversations. There is no chatter; it is more like forum queries with impersonal requests for assistance and questions to technical problems. There is no place to share personal ideas, insights, or experiences and connect to other people’s thoughts by means of permalinks. • Workplaces are just document libraries. Workplace Web applications are just information capturing repositories, where users can drop file attachments and create pages in a wiki-style. There is no place for collaboration, conversation, and social networking. Very similar to knowledge communities, the tools used to implement these spaces need a social shift in order to more effectively manage user knowledge. THE STATE OF ENTERPRISE WEB 2.0 IN CSC We have become accustomed to seeing more and more Web 2.0 applications coming into companies through the back door, in the form of ad hoc KM tools for projects or competency centers, accessible only by a few members of those groups. Although these tools don’t have a global scope, the best approach would be to incorporate them into the intranet and make them visible to a wider audience so more people can learn from them. For this, the intranet needs to have the infrastructure for creating and maintaining communities in a comfortable manner. CSC has carried out significant initiatives to build up a new Web 2.0-ish intranet for KM and non-KM specific environments. The most representative effort has been in the field of KM and innovation with the deployment of a new Web 2.0 tool called “CSC Portal Wiki.” This tool is still in its beta period; it was released in November 2007 as a pilot prototype to evaluate how CSCers respond to and utilize social software for their daily work. The tool offered several new collaboration features such as blogs, wikis, social networking, and social bookmarking. Figures 16 and 17 show how this tool is currently being used by CSCers. It is important to note that when these numbers were taken, the tool was in beta, so the data may be lower than expected because employees may have feared data loss. 32
Slide 35: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Figure 16. CSC Portal Wiki User Activity (November 2007) Figure 17. CSC Portal Wiki User Activity (December 2007) As described in the figures above, during November 2007 the CSC Portal Wiki had peaks of user activity of almost 3,500 visits and nearly 275 content edits per day. These numbers decreased in December (probably due to the holiday period) to peaks of approximately 2,500 visits per day, though the maximum number of content edits in one day increased to 300. Another conclusion that can be extracted from these graphs is that users tend to make use of this tool to create and configure wiki pages rather than post blog entries and comments. However, these results do not show average values that could help us quickly witness how much this tool is used in a timely basis. Additionally, it is very important to see what happens during the first months of 2008: Will activity continue to decrease or will it be reinforced? 33
Slide 36: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT In addition to this information, we can also analyze how many users are contributing to this tool since it was first launched in November 2007. The following table identifies the number of users in various categories based on usage of the wiki tool as of January 2008. Type of User Number of registered users Number of registered users with personal spaces Number of users who have used the wiki at least once Number of users with extended content (more than home page, no test) Number of active users with valuable content frequently updated Number 979 306 38 15 9 Although these figures could look worrisome because 15 employees out of nearly 80,000 is a low percentage of participation, it is crucial to remember that the tool is still in its beta period and many workers have not been officially notified of the availability of this new intranet function. At the time this paper was written, the CSC Portal Wiki was only 2 months old, and most of the active users had found it by chance or were informed by direct contacts involved in the project. The next section analyzes how intranet social functionality must be implemented in CSC to make the most of our intellectual capital and corporate knowledge. DEPLOYMENT ROAD MAP In earlier sections we stated that for many experts, the main strategic objective of Enterprise Web 2.0 should be in the field of knowledge management. The next big step is designing the solution for delivering Web 2.0 to employees more from a logical standpoint than a physical architecture—that is, outlining how employees can make the most of these tools and how they fit into our organizational business units and processes. Figure 18 presents how CSC should embrace enterprise social software for knowledge management, giving more relevance to people than tools and processes. CSC EW 2.0 Personal • • • User Profiles Personal Blogs Bookmarks Service Oriented Accounts Knowledge Communities Programs / Projects Divisions Competency Centers Centers of Excellence Geographically Oriented Communities Regions • • • • Wikis Team Blogs Bookmarks Doc Library Countries Delivery Centers Figure 18. Road Map for CSC Enterprise Web 2.0 In this model, we have two different components where people can share knowledge and collaborate. First, we would have “Personal Spaces,” a unique Web area for each employee, with global scope in their organization and functionality, to share knowledge in the form of personal blogs and bookmarks. These personal spaces would include a professional profile 34
Slide 37: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT with their occupation in the organization, along with specialties, skills, and areas of knowledge. Also, these personal spaces must have functionality for finding and connecting with other employees to build a network of trusted colleagues. Then, we would have “Community Spaces.” Apart from those unique Web personal areas, employees could share knowledge and innovate along the lines of concrete business topics, competencies, skills, or practices through additional Web spaces featured with Web 2.0 tools such as team wikis, team blogs, team bookmarks, and document libraries. These communities would have the same objective as the existing CSC Knowledge Communities in the CSC Portal, but they must be connected to personal spaces so individual contributions made in these communities can be rapidly recognized by employees, who can access personal spaces, locate SMEs, and connect with them. Under this simple framework, it is crucial to determine a consolidated plan to build communities following consistent criteria. Figure 18 outlines how these community spaces should be created in CSC, which is described as follows: • First, we would have geographically-orientated communities—that is, spaces where employees from the same strategic region, country, or delivery center can share local knowledge in the form of blog posts or wiki pages concerning that explicit territorial unit. In this case, it will be necessary to put a protection mechanism in place so that some features of Web 2.0 tools are restricted to authorized users only. For example, the SouthWest European region community could have a team blog where only people in the management line or marketing team can post blog entries related to region-specific news, but anyone in the region can leave their comments. • Second, we would have communities focused on customer delivery services, so people working for the same strategic division, customer account, program or project, or technical competency center can team together, innovate, communicate, and collaborate online via Web 2.0 tools to further improve the team’s knowledge. These service units have been implementing their own silo’ed social software solutions, so it is time to make their knowledge available and put everything together throughout our intranet. With this structure in mind, all individuals inside the organization (regular and decisionmaking employees) will see not only their knowledge production capabilities augmented but also their knowledge sources. Hence, communities will be both qualitatively and quantitatively richer; every single employee will have the opportunity to join a vast number of knowledge communities to learn from. Consequently, it may look like tools utilized to implement operative knowledge communities (CSC Portal) and these Web 2.0 community spaces (CSC Portal Wiki Beta) are in conflict, with the new ones trying to replace the old. So, what is the best solution for CSC? The answer is that these tools need to cohabitate during the beta period, as shown in Figure 19. To introduce these new tools in a progressive way, every Portal Community should have its equivalent in the CSC Portal Wiki, so employees can get used to managing more approved, definitive, or contrasted content. Further, new Web 2.0 communities should be used as the extension for innovation with more live content, where everybody (CSC and customers) can collaborate to produce a new outcome or make it evolve until it is mature enough to be moved to the Portal. 35
Slide 38: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Living laboratory Fresh communication channel New Web 2.0 Communities + on a ti ov In n Mature Approved content Evolution Live content KM Portal Communities Standardized Official publication of contrasted knowledge Figure 19. Portal Communities and Wiki Communities Cohabitation in Beta Period In time, after a period of refinement, the optimum approach will be to amplify Portal Communities with new innovation spaces and fresh communication channels provided by Web 2.0 communities, serving as a new mechanism to collaborate throughout the maturity cycle of ideas and innovations. Only one concept of Portal Communities will exist, more focused on people, social networks, and the flow of knowledge between the people in them—and then the Enterprise Web 2.0 strategy for KM will be successfully implemented (see Figure 20). Living laboratory Fresh communication channel Live content Innovation + KM Evolution Idea Maturity Web 2.0 Communities Approved content Standardized Mature Official publication of contrasted knowledge Figure 20. The Future of CSC Knowledge Communities with Web 2.0 Additionally, there are other non-KM–specific environments and systems within the intranet that can be empowered with Web 2.0 techniques and tools to make them more usable and to gain users, resulting in an improvement of overall efficiency. • Global Travel System. CSC travel could be improved with Web 2.0 collaboration techniques, such as employee reviews and recommendations about hotels and restaurants near CSC or customer offices, all mashed up with Google Maps. • Global Profile Manager and GPAI Resumes. Companies should be reticent about using MySpace or Facebook as corporate intranets, but not LinkedIn, which is an open service designed for business purposes, and users don’t have to reveal too much personal information. LinkedIn simply connects the user to other people and creates a professional résumé. Dozens of CSC employees have LinkedIn profiles, so why not improve these two systems with this open service and create a richer directory? 36
Slide 39: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT • Requests for Assistance. For requests for assistance, it is not a good idea to use the LinkedIn Questions & Answers feature. If we use it, we could be revealing confidential information that should stay behind the firewall. However, it looks like this system needs refactoring to a more collaborative Web 2.0 style, and above all, it needs RSS feeds so employees can be aware of any updates. • Portal News. User comments, ratings, and tags would be useful; rather than reading all the news, employees could focus on those items flagged with higher ratings and more comments, or only check out those most viewed. • Learning Courses. We could add comments and evaluations to courses, similar to amazon.com reviews. Search results could be based on those ratings, with the most valued courses showing up first. • Enterprise Search Engine. Our search engine does not work because information within our company is not hyperlinked. This is fixed with the rise of blogs and wikis, where the content is more structured in links and you can jump from place to place by following links. No matter how good the search algorithm is, it needs an underlying linked structure that will surely be empowered with these new technologies. USER TRAINING We can identify three types of training users must receive in order to make the most of Enterprise Web 2.0 tools in the field of innovation and knowledge management: • Technology training. Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, wikis, social bookmarks, and profile connections are easier than the tools workers are already using. Often, employees are too busy at work and do not make time to learn new technologies and tools, even if they can help them improve their routine tasks. The adoption of Enterprise Web 2.0 is directly proportional to the inherent learning curve associated to these tools, and Web 2.0 tools require virtually zero training (see Figure 21). They strictly follow one major rule of software usability, which is that they make the right things easy to do and the wrong things hard [58]. All this is directly transferable to business results, as efforts for both regular users and sales managers are reduced, because all of us will be using widespread and socially accepted tools that we already know and like. • Best practices guideline training. Zero technical training does not mean “no training.” Employees need to be aware of what is going on. They need to know that the big reason behind using these tools is building a more effective management of our corporate knowledge through Web 2.0 sharing tools. There is a culture shift behind the phrase “if it is not shared, it is lost.” Organizations need to make sure everybody is trained along these lines and familiarized with all the business implications scoped out earlier in this paper and the effects in intellectual capital. Managers need to promote the use of Enterprise Web 2.0 by means of corporate best practice guidelines synthesizing the core objectives of this new strategy. • Governance policy training. As well as being aware of the ultimate objectives and benefits, employees must understand the legal regulations that apply to the use of these new collaborative tools, and the litigation that may result from noncompliance with information security and intellectual property laws. Again, companies need to make sure employees receive the essential training courses to avoid problematic situations. 37
Slide 40: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Quantity of Creators Hundreds of Millions Tens of Millions Millions •Web Desktops •Blogs •Wikis •Mash-ups •Situational Apps •Rich Internet Apps •Composite Apps •Enterprise Mash-ups •Office 2.0 •SOA Variety •RSS Feeds •Tags •Bookmarks •Social Networks •Widgets •Web Architectures Anyone Expert Users Developers Complexity Figure 21. The Difficulty Curve of Web 2.0 Platforms [61] IMPACTS ON CATALYST The major benefits that Enterprise Web 2.0 tools bring to this methodology are arguably those related to the process of generating and maintaining Catalyst assets. For many, Web 2.0 tools could be seen as new assets themselves, but this is not the best approach because where they really add value is in the Asset Engineering (AE) process and in its associated knowledge environments. Thus, the use of wikis, blogs, and social networks can help establish a better management strategy for knowledge workers involved in these corporative processes: • Knowledge Environment. The diagram bellow describes CSC’s existing Catalyst Knowledge Environment and the interactions between teams using this environment. We can see how the different teams work together through the process of learning and maintaining various assets (see Figure 22). Are Used and Tailored by Catalyst Assets Processes, Topics and Techniques, Roles, Work Products Create and Update Knowledge Engineering Teams Field Users Learning Assets Are Used and Tailored by Submit Field-Contributed Assets Processes, tailored processes, Best practices, tips, and hints, completed work products, and lessons learned Are Reviewed and Rated by Are Assessed for Use by Support Knowledge Communities Among Provide SME Input to CSC Communities Figure 22. Catalyst Knowledge Environment With Web 2.0 tools we can still maintain the same interaction model, but we can easily spot how they can add value to team communications and actions, especially for the CSC Catalyst Community. Wikis and blogs could be used as a new form of knowledge representation, where all teams can collaborate on top of others’ content, establishing a 38
Slide 41: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT richer way to provide new inputs, support, or reviews. Also, knowledge can be better distributed with RSS or better categorized with tags. In essence, it would mean more effective management of the knowledge utilized to handle Catalyst assets. • Asset Engineering Process. Web 2.0 tools must be used through the asset construction life cycle at different stages. For example, wikis are very suitable tools for team inputs in the Asset Definition and Project definition phases. At the same time, SMEs can be easily identified by means of social networking and their input gathered by means of online conversations through blogs and wikis. During the build phases, these collaboration tools can serve as a review mechanism, where models evolve from continuous revisions and contributions, and everybody can learn and team together to obtain a better outcome. PRODUCTS STATE OF THE ART THE NEED OF PRODUCTS We need to understand the role of product packages in the world of Enterprise Web 2.0 for KM. As scoped out above, first generation KM failed to succeed due to the inability to provide effective tools to build and leverage knowledge, in part caused by the wrong approach of focusing on rigid IT tools and processes rather than knowledge workers. Consequently, for many the following question is evident: If a good KM strategy should not depend on product packages, and Enterprise Web 2.0 promotes the “lack of structure,” why do we need products again for next generation corporate knowledge management? The answer is that tools are needed or otherwise nothing could be accomplished, but what’s needed are tools that impose minimal structure and that are always available to users, not the other way around. Tools are mechanisms to achieve a goal, not the goal itself (like it used to be in traditional KM, where all products had their own proprietary structure). The good thing about Enterprise Web 2.0 products is that all of them introduce standardized tools with light-weight structures (see Figure 23). In this new model, users can share knowledge openly without imposed formats, collaborating inside the boundaries established by a product package. Traditional IT Products for KM Enterprise Web 2.0 Products for KM Figure 23. Traditional IT Structures vs. Enterprise Web 2.0 According to a report conducted by Forrester [29][59], who surveyed 119 CIOs on the topic of Enterprise Web 2.0 technologies, it looks like companies are certainly willing to embrace Web 2.0 as a suite of products provided by major vendors (see Figure 24). 39
Slide 42: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Would you be more interested in these technologies if they were offered by a major incumbent vendor like Microsoft or IBM or if they were offered by a smaller specialist firms like SocialText, NewsGator, MindTouch and others? 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Overall Using all six Web 2.0 technologies Using two to five Web 2.0 technologies Using one or fewer Web 2.0 Technologies Don't know 3 7 1 0 0 4 0 3 3 26 35 39 71 61 55 93 More interested if offered by a major vendor Doesn't matter More interested if offered by a smaller firm Figure 24. CIO Level of Interest in Enterprise Web 2.0 Products GARTNER’S MAGIC QUADRANT Beyond the reports presented by Forrester, the next question is: Which product suites are the best options for implementing an Enterprise Web 2.0 strategy? For this purpose, Gartner released the 2007 Magic Quadrant for team collaboration and social software (see Figure 25). This kind of report depicts products in the middle phases of their life cycle by using a two-dimensional matrix that evaluates vendors based on their completeness of vision (offering strategy, innovation) and ability to execute (product/service, overall viability) [60]. Figure 25. Gartner Magic Quadrant for Team Collaboration and Social Software (2007) The main problem with this analysis is that it uses a wide scope of functionality, as indicated in the final report. 40
Slide 43: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT For this version of the Magic Quadrant we did not insist on any specific coordination or social software functionality, as there is not yet a clear consensus on what should be included. However, we do expect to see at least some of the following optional functionality and, indeed, we have given better scores to products with more complete functionality in the following areas: Calendar integration, task allocation, task tracking, workflow, basic project management, wikis, blogs, social tags, social bookmarks, social network analysis, social network visualization, content feeds, people search (expertise location), team decision support voting, sorting, ranking, scenario planning and categorizing), content rating, reputation management and alerting. It looks like this report has measured social interaction features by all these indicators. As a result, the quadrant is not based on an apples-to-apples comparison of products from the various vendors [60]. For instance, some products that are enterprise-specific wikis, like SocialText, MindTouch, and Twiki, are directly compared to more community-oriented platforms such as Jive Software and Leverage Software products. As stated in the report, “although few products can claim to offer a comprehensive set of capabilities, it is already evident that functional boundaries in different products are constantly broadening and that there are very few ‘pure’ products. Most offer a blend of different capabilities and we expect that successful products will continue to assimilate new functionality”—like the Atlas extension for IBM Lotus Connections. As introduced earlier in this paper in “The State of Enterprise Web 2.0,” we are just now living the prefaces of Enterprise Web 2.0, with a long road ahead. This Gartner report reflects this sense of immaturity: • None of the analyzed vendors are placed in the leaders quadrant. • Only two can be classified as visionaries. • Only two major firms are challengers with the highest ability to execute. • Almost all suppliers are niche players, and none of them have full Web 2.0 social computing features. However, in this rapidly changing, cutting-edge world of Enterprise Web 2.0 software, reports like this become obsolete very quickly, even just a few months after their release. This is the case of the discipline we are talking about here. Three months after this Gartner report was published, some vendors openly announced their new road maps for their enterprise social software strategies, including new functionality that doubtless will impact the Gartner evaluation. CONCLUSIONS The Web has evolved and will continue to evolve. The way we communicate with each other has improved, and collective intelligence has become the next major knowledge resource. Bringing that model behind the firewall to obtain business benefits has been the main topic of this paper. We introduced a case study stressing why Web 2.0 should be embraced by enterprises, giving major reasons supported by the results of a deep analysis of the impacts on the concrete business area of knowledge management. This is something that many evangelizers forget to do; they should answer the key question, in this case: Why Web 2.0? 41
Slide 44: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT To answer that question, this paper has collected dozens of references, opinions, insights, articles, and studies from across the Internet, echoing experts, thought leaders, and, most importantly, the big collective of thinkers. Thus, most of the topics presented during the past few sections are my own, designed by me in the early stages of the research work; but for some others I only followed what the global chatter was talking about in blogs and wikis, reflecting those suggestions here. It is important to mention that to discover all that content, I did very few Google searches. Serendipity ruled, so most of the time I was self-serviced with RSS feeds from the key blogs I subscribe to; after that, I only jumped from one to another to discover new sources of knowledge that helped me obtain new information. Also, folksonomies from social bookmarking sites helped me quickly realize what was hot about a concrete topic, and many of the key references in this paper were found in this way. This is how next-generation knowledge management works with Web 2.0. This grant paper has been a big knowledge exercise and also a clear example of the outlined benefits. But I have not only gained knowledge from the Internet. I have brought that model into CSC through the CSC Portal Wiki Beta, where I wrote a blog and periodically posted my progress on the research, along with some thoughts. That helped me get in touch with our key thought leaders, who jumped into my personal space and provided very valuable feedback, new knowledge, and suggestions. As a result, many sections of this paper have been refined through iterations and dynamic reviews by means of the corporate wiki. In this manner, this research has been a real example of effective corporate knowledge management with Web 2.0. For how long will Enterprise Web 2.0 be a hot topic? Are we about to see another bubble burst? It does not look that way, and what remains clear is that Web 2.0 is not a trend. It is here to say. Why? Users have been given rights they do not want to renounce. In any case, it will evolve to Web 3.0, or whatever the new name is, but always keeping its fundamental social nature, involving every Web-based discipline. For all these reasons, 2008 will probably be the year in which corporate intranets and their associated knowledge management environments will get social. Products such as IBM Lotus Connections and Microsoft SharePoint already incorporated social networking capabilities in 2007 with varying degrees of success, and we will see how this feature will increasingly become the keystone of enterprise social software products. Networks and people contacts will take the place of traditional address books, helping employees meet more people, locate experts, and work with them. Additionally, there will definitely be room for more integration. We will see how Enterprise Web 2.0 social software will try to leverage not only corporate knowledge as far as possible but also Internet knowledge residing in open services. For example, in January 2008 IBM announced that version 2.0 of Lotus Connections will be integrated with Yahoo! Answers and Facebook. This strategy is possible thanks to the new architecture popularized by Web 2.0—that is, an Internet SOA, where data can be consumed and moved between different Web applications in a very comfortable way thanks to new data-exchange formats like RSS, new architectural models like REST, and new browser-consumption capabilities with JavaScript. Being able to use the Internet as a source of data in an enterprise context will not only give these new formats and models a big boost for adoption and standardization but will also help replicate this new distributed approach behind the firewall. This is slightly different than what we are accustomed to seeing in our organizations, where SOA is strongly tied to protocols like SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol, and XML 42
Slide 45: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT protocol) and standards like WS-*. Hence, we will see how these enterprise SOAs are reinvented with unexplored possibilities, such as original and augmented opportunities for creating and utilizing mashup applications and widgets as part of our daily jobs. Furthermore, it will be rewarding to see how the dimensions of integration become wider, involving mobile devices that will use the Web as a source of knowledge through lightweight formats like RSS or Atom over the HTTP protocol. It is also important to mention how the proliferation of blogs, wikis, and folksonomies within organizations, and the inherent hyperlinked structure they introduce, will boost enterprise search engines functions. Regardless of the search algorithm being used, users need the ability to jump from one page to another without having to refine the search conditions. This is something that is empowered with the often self-referencing community of bloggers. How will all this impact knowledge management? The possibilities to build and leverage knowledge from both corporate and Internet sources are indefinite—more than we can understand now—but they will surely help accelerate our businesses. 43
Slide 46: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT REFERENCES [1] Faulkner, George, and David Barnes. “Cut #26. What is Web 2.0?” IBM Shortcuts, March 15, 2007 (http://www-941.ibm.com/ShortCuts/?p=29). Ding, Yihong. “A simple picture of web evolutions.” Web 2.0 Explorer, ZDNet Blogs, November 5, 2007 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/?p=408). O’Reilly, Tim. “What is Web 2.0.” O’Reilly, September 30, 2005 (http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html). Graham, Paul. “Web 2.0”, Paul Graham’s Blog, November 2005 (http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html). O’Reilly, Tim. “Web 2.0 Compact Definition”, O’Reilly Radar, October 2005 (http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web_20_compact_definition.html). ZDNet, “Definition for Web 2.0”, ZDNet Dictionary (http://dictionary.zdnet.com/definition/Web+2.0.html). Wikipedia contributors. “Web 2.0,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 (accessed November 7, 2007). Wikipedia contributors. “Folksonomy,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy, accessed November 7, 2007). Coates, Tom. “On Permalinks and Paradigms …”, Plasticbag.org, June 11, 2003 (http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2003/06/on_permalinks_and_paradigms/). Wikipedia contributors. “Tag cloud,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_Cloud, accessed November 9, 2007). Wikipedia contributors. “Wiki,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki, accessed November 9, 2007). Faulkner, George, and Luis Suarez. “Cut #13: Wikis for Work,” IBM Shortcuts, October 20, 2006 (http://www-941.ibm.com/ShortCuts/?p=13). Technorati, About Technorati. http://technorati.com/about/ (accessed November 13, 2007). Wikipedia. Wikipedia Multilingual Statistics.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_statistics, accessed November 13, 2007). Wikipedia contributors. “Ajax,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX, accessed November 14, 2007). Wikipedia contributors. “XMLHttpRequest,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest, accessed November 14, 2007). Data facilitated by Stephen Hood, del.icio.us Inc., November 2007. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] 44
Slide 47: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT [18] Merril, Duane. “Mashups: The new breed of Web app,” IBM Developer Works Articles, August 8, 2006 (http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/xmashups.html). Endrei, M., et al., “Patterns: Service-Oriented Architecture and Web Services,” IBM Redbook, 2004. Joe McKendrick, “Mashup vs. SOA app: what’s the difference?” Service-Oriented Architecture, ZDNet Blogs, June 21, 2006 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/serviceoriented/?p=647). Schulte, R. Message Brokers: A Focused Approach to Application Integration, Gartner Group White Paper, June 1996. Graebner, Lynn. “Software-as-a-service conference will tackle industry shift,” Business Journal, March 18, 2005 (http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/03/21/smallb2.html?jst=cn_cn_l k). Wikipedia contributors. “Software as a service,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_Service (accessed November 20, 2007). Hinchcliffe, Dion. “The story of Web 2.0 and SOA continues—Part 1,” Enterprise Web 2.0, ZDNet Blogs, May 17 2007 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=107). Wikipedia contributors. “Enterprise social software,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_social_software (accessed November 20, 2007). McAfee, Andrew. “Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration,” MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 47, No.3, pp. 21–28 (Spring 2006). Hinchcliffe, Dion. “The state of Enterprise 2.0,” Enterprise Web 2.0, ZDNet Blogs, October 22, 2007 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=143). Hinchcliffe, Dion. “Significant workplace inroads for Enterprise 2.0,” Enterprise Web 2.0, ZDNet Blogs, October 30, 2007 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=150). Young, G. Oliver. “CIOs want suites for Web 2.0”, Forrester, March 20, 2007 (http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,41797,00.html). Hinchcliffe, Dion. “‘Enterprise 2.0’ as the example that proves the rule”, Enterprise Web 2.0, ZDNet Blogs, August 20, 2006 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=62). McAfee, Andrew. “The Trends Underlying Enterprise 2.0,” March 24, 2006 (http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/index.php/faculty_amcafee_v3/the_three_trends _underlying_enterprise_20/). Hinchcliffe, Dion. “More organizations shift to Web 2.0 while IT departments remain wary,” Enterprise Web 2.0, ZDNet Blogs, March 8, 2007 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=101). [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] 45
Slide 48: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT [33] Hinchcliffe, Dion. “Enterprise 2.0 as a corporate culture catalyst”, Enterprise Web 2.0, ZDNet Blogs, May 5, 2007 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=105). Ives, Bill. “Growing Collection of Enterprise 2.0 success stories,” Portals and KM, September 26, 2007 (http://billives.typepad.com/portals_and_km/2007/09/growingcollect.html). Socialtext contributor, “Big Money in Enterprise 2.0,” Socialtext, October 19, 2007 (http://www.socialtext.com/node/309). Alter, Allan E. “A Second Life: 10 Web 2.0 apps CIOs personally use,” CIO Insight, August 2007 (http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0%2C1540%2C2174694%2C00.asp). The McKinsey Quarterly, “How Business are using Web 2.0: A McKinsey Global Survey,” The McKinsey Quarterly, March 2007 (http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_page.aspx?ar=1913&gp=1&pagenum=1 ). The Radicati Group, “Business Social Software Market, 2007–2011”, The Radicati Group, October 2007 (http://www.radicati.com/brochure.asp?id=477). Eid, Tom, and Nikos Drakos. “The Emerging Enterprise Social Software Marketplace,” Gartner, July 23 2007 (http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?ref=g_search&id=510196&subref=simp lesearch). Dellow, James. “Knowledge Management: How to separate the wheat from the chaff,” Chief Technology Solutions, March 2006. Wikipedia contributors, “Knowledge Management,” Wikipedia ,The Free Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_management, accessed November 29, 2007). Callahan, Shawn. “Knowledge Sharing Principles,” Anecdote, putting stories to work, October 2007 (http://www.anecdote.com.au/archives/2007/10/knowledge_shari_3.html). Drahzal, Kelly. “Knowledge Sharing Principles,” Kellypuffs, Not Just for Breakfast Anymore, November 2007 (http://kellypuffs.wordpress.com/?s=Knowledge+Sharing). Ehrlich, Kate. “Social Networking Analysis,” IBM Watson Research Center (http://domino.watson.ibm.com/cambridge/research.nsf/a1d792857da52f638525630f 004e7ab8/5117d1e24406c49d85256f87006af3bb?OpenDocument). Petrassi, Jim, and Sharon Whitaker. “Strategic Innovation and the Impact on Collaboration Technologies,” CSC Leading Edge Forum, July 2005 (http://www.csc.com/cscworld/042007/web/documents/WEBEXCLUSIVE_Strategic_Innovation.pdf). Millen, David, Jonathan Feinberg, and Bernard Kerr (IBM), “Social Bookmarking in the Enterprise,” ACM Queue, November 2005 [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] 46
Slide 49: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (http://www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=344& page=1). [47] FTF, Fundación de la Innovación de Bankinter, “Web 2.0: El Negocio de las Redes Sociales,” 2007 (http://www.ftforum.org/web20.htm). Nielsen, Jacob. “Web 2.0 can be dangerous …”, useit.com Alertbox, December 2007 (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/web-2.html). Zeltzer, Alysa N., and John E. Villafranco, “As Blogging Grows, so Do Its Do’s and Don’ts,” Legal Technology, February 2007 (http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1171620175568). Wise, Garry J. “Facebook as Corporate Intranet?, Wise Law Blog, December 2007 (http://wiselaw.blogspot.com/2007/12/facebook-as-corporate-intranet.html). McAfee, Andrew. “Evangelizing in the Empty Quarter,” The Impact of Information Technology (IT) on Business and their Leaders, November 2006 (http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/index.php/faculty_amcafee_v3/evangelizing_in _the_empty_quarter). Northeastern University & Backbone Media. “Blogging Success Study,” November 2006 (http://www.scoutblogging.com/success_study/). IBM, “IBM Blogging Policy and Guidelines,” Spring 2005 (http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html). Sun Microsystems. “Blogging Guidelines (http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/blogs/BloggingGuidelines.pdf). MSN Search, “What We Will Write About,” Live Search, November 17, 2004 (http://blogs.msdn.com/livesearch/archive/2004/11/17/259041.aspx). Yahoo!, “Yahoo! Personal Blog Guidelines 1.0” (http://jeremy.zawodny.com/yahoo/yahoo-blog-guidelines.pdf). CSC, “Social Networking. The Benefits and the Risks,” CSC Wiki Beta, December 2007 (https://portal.amer.csc.com/wiki/display/collab/Social+Networking++The+Benefits+and+the+Risks). Hinchcliffe, Dion. “Nine ideas for IT managers considering Enterprise 2.0,” Enterprise Web 2.0, ZDNet Blogs, October 2006 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=70). MacManus, Richard. “CIOs spurn Web 2.0 Startups–Enterprise Want Suites and Large, Incumbet Software Vendors,” Read Write Web, March 2007 (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/cios_spurn_web2_startups.php). Farber, Dan. “The Magic Quadrant: Team Collaboration and Social Software,” Between the Lines, ZDNet Blogs, October 2007 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6777). [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] 47
Slide 50: NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT [61] Hinchcliffe, Dion. “Tracking the DIY phenomenon Part 2: Mass Customization, mashups, and recombinant web apps,” Enterprise Web 2.0, ZDNet Blogs, February 2007 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=81). 48