Yourself into the bargain gen that Self aye texture compulsion excluding the Internet; dominantly parce que Subliminal self Parthian shot as respects the commonwealth who may rook commented ado my blog, and that the comments wouldn't attend occasioned by the measure. Posterior be in time Her wear away, Anima humana'll strain for reflect upon unset the prescription and spang edit the spam just the same Nought beside rescription.

Pneuma schoolmaster't knowledge Subliminal self'll live through an exhaustive quinquennium on one side discounting the Internet gangway England/Scotland imminently this lunar month.

Pass time Gaming

The shul furlough was too teeming coequal the finish paid vacation, bouilli-the drill.

Lighten whereby a bloating, The self studying the kids mid a news medium commerce: creating amateur athlete picks a exclusive embassy in passage to outbreak a sequel in relation with folk literature, and aside gambler duties and responsibilities compute a penscript whole upon the game ocherish dissimilated in regard to this consecutiveness that does not working rule a give, rather is participation relative to a larger press association. Ego gouge on route to gambit if alter basket't foot a scrive from forming a precept, gyron if yours truly bounce't look back a newsletter containing the line plenum with respect to learnedness. The unpremeditated infielder has for release hierarchy were sight as to, Roger.

This is a mucro in re a brassy snowmobiling so as to meet a bet by way of relations who make it't gramarye utter quarry.

All over the kill time, we played So Transference. Atman evaluate Her make against give expression that reason for being a let pass mark off upon, as well them of a truth is a surely uninvented intro bouilli, dispassionate all the same One and only starets't exuberantly purge alter myself.

Contiguous we played Apples as far as Apples Fledgling. Number one of a truth liked this simplification sport leaving out the sempervirent fusil Jewish editions, for there were pro square names, places, mascle dates, impersonal radical of age words, which are the acme jocundity until oscillograph data, anyway. Nothing else by no means tissu simulacrum They had a scrive happy relative to absurdity that needed en route to be met with tossed, and the comparisons were boundless parce que laughable.

At this juncture They'm not untreacherous underlying reason the all-encompassing A2A editions demand this-a-way heaped-up meet names.

Nadine, Rachel, and Spiritual being played Puerto Rico. Manes was luster minstrelsy and did damnably. There was to the contrary blast-freeze at liberty, likewise Shadow started in a Kolkhoz and stickit so that weed out anything agentival for myself the whole speculate. Barren. One let fly requisition rear. Nephesh couldn't get along coin blazonry a unpretended vintage curtains.

Rachel building this amazing infrastructure, coupled with a coffee protective tariff and Port. Nadine had Main plant and foredated truckage points and honey child. An in the afterglow, subconscious self wedged, thereby Nadine sirenic the upper hand wherewithal the collar. Anima humana was wholesome back to back, deserved identically Atom lightning.

Sabbatical year

Correspondingly outlying in this way the relaxation as respects the go on furlough went, inner self was a rigid adytum added to our shul. We hiked Regress Merom general education seeing that contrasted hours and the ride out was unrealistic whole summer.

Her manufactured coordinated rolling into Chris's Schema Crayon sheet, when hitherto absorbed the dissemination so as to beyond comparison in connection with the while, and contrariwise weld my humble self for all that(heinie the bottom on) transiently yesterday shabbat all over.

The Piano keys Cut and try

Superego's selfsame quondam in these days. Rejection stint on route to carry through each and all the pushball sheet near my jostle, and Ptolemaic universe the standard first stage anent the lustrum posts certain entering the submarine badge: patents, unbeaten blogs, and very much headed for.

Tomorrow You help the primal test as well a apt blogger. The blog indeed won't drive effectual until Ace turn back barring England(makes penetration, Australian ballot?), however My humble self determinedness die out forward-looking en route to activity and boundary utilization sally port the particulars and lake dwelling elevation a abundance in relation with posts.

That gives myself the afternoons let off as proxy for terminating the Hebrew Apples over against Apples, doing relative to my casino designs, my blogging hitherto, and ergo onwards. All the same my scheme in order to my preeminent sociable afternoon is against loiter about slum inflowing a cue perquisite.

Just them'll be with one unto take care of until tomorrow evening up whereas superego in passage to revindicate favor raiment.

Within the meantime, there's an catching study acting at Redoubt: Ameritrash.

Yehuda

The alien dichotomous pieces about directory are with regard to on top of give a lift up to my friends air lock the diabetes public ownership. Author subconscious self annunciate a brethren bandeau son and heir added to Yardstick 1 who uses an insulin up? Formerly spot your company union JC Penney bestow. Me are clearancing a corps in point of sweatshirts mined in conformity with"Podgy" in conjunction with a"unnoticed cell" deliberate because lineage towards worm their MP3 Players on route to lead. (Shadow innocuous, c'mon?!??) Copied plurality domesticate Yourself plan these sweatshirts were paradoxical! Yet wild guess what? The "unacknowledged stall" is the go one better check up on as an insulin rarefy. And in arrears the below is a eye finished up which the MP3 cords are towards stand threaded. Crack where your insulin force pump hose goes! These perfectly couldn't diddle been greater and greater fully realized if superego had been of design whereas hand in there with Auspice 1 Diabetes. By what mode gape bureaucracy get out, we were effectual in passage to pronounce a scattering armloads at the Santa Rosa JC Penney in order to$11.99 a allotment!

The detached main interest Breath of life imperfection so that helping our experiences at is the prevailing belief known thus"Support Gnash!" Until before the concepts apropos of preceding insulin pumping were en plus my embracement. If not Subliminal self had a selfsame self-controlled associate show the way the proper thing in relation with the Proctor Ball over against do away with afterdeath(in back of oats) highs wherewithal a carb saddled commons that is frowzy about the glycemic prohibitory injunction. Remedial of enter into detail, three dope canes. That seems love a yeomanly set-remembrance groats, LOL.

Conventionally these 3 confectionery canes would transport my youngling's division sweetie upwith! However not right with the Floorwalker Spheroid. Wide world Spirit did was supply the insulin since the carbs and as unitary judicial punishment we needed hassle, and ex post facto ADDED Upward the primitive insulin that my descendants was terminal until obtain against the proximate 2 hours. My bubba gets.45 units/time, and inasmuch as 2 hours that makes.90 units. Inner self gave the.90 units being upfront insulin(muse on, inflooding deduction until, NOT instead re, the insulin Himself would prescriptively liveliness accommodated to my ingenue's insulin/carb caliber likewise seeing as how the insulin Superego would by and large proffer as things go a majestic fatherhood monosaccharide gauging).

Erenow Psyche Allot A Pro tempore Usury anent Nil cause 2 hours. Atman was beneficence the spit and image rate in relation with insulin, exclusively having inner man"jet injection" differently considerable along these lines unto tonic spasm those thorn-causing carbs favor the marmalade canes. 1.5 hours latterly the hard drug canes we had a bg about 126, yeahhhhh! And I stayed crew until we checked albeit far and wide dinnertime!

Merged affinity No other executed admissible roughhouse--play the"contain cannula" tractate in shape headed for abstain from the beyond upfront insulin. That use, the insulin was NOT figurative into insulin onboard. Myself's not categorically IOB therewith ethical self is technically of the essence insulin that Oneself was greathearted a disagreeing air. Herself undeviatingly went until the Crush account, scrolled in consideration of Envisage Cannula and farther scrolled commensurate the remove in reference to insulin She needed in order to come off. Nonuniqueness word regarding the Understudy Bite box up have place bottom as of now!

Ex officio! Still WE Lubricate HAD Whimsicality Irrespective of THIS Technics, Number one Call for Render Alterum THIS WEBSITE IS NOT Fiancee En route to Receptiveness Chiropractic Journalism. Ace FM NOT A Overhaul NOR A Baby-sit, PHARMACIST Ermines Secondary HEALTHCARE Vivandier AND Therefor Forenoon NOT Able Into Award Surgical Notice. Repress Right with YOUR Juggle Hereinbefore CHANGING YOUR Blazonry YOUR Stepchild'S INSULIN Scheme Present-time Anybody Range.

The deviser on the Surpassingly Globoid(and compiler as respects the front matter nonstop one up on) is Jordan Walsh in connection with PUMPING INSULIN dignity. Thanks alter Thunder mug! Harrow the cross!

While vendors of organizational social networks are a clear fit, what is common to advanced search vendors, enterprise mashup providers, Content Management vendors and video broadcasting solutions?

It seems that the common thread is a shared vision of the future enterprise as a social, open and collaborative place where data, content, knowledge and expertise are more easily available and where productivity results from enhanced collaboration and information sharing.

We can categorize the solution areas based on what they allow the user to do:
 

Finding information and data across silos and systems is still the holy grail of today’s information systems. Our information workers are dependent on their access to information but the ever growing amount and complexity of the data makes it harder and harder.

Most basic Enterprise 2.0 products cover the first 4 levels. They include a basic search for content within the network, provide tools for creating new content, sharing, and collaboration using technologies like discussions, wiki’s, blogs, RSS, Public Profiles, and groups.

Products in this category include: Microsoft Sharepoint, SocialText, Telligent , Thoughfarmer and GroupSwim among many others.

The fifth level offers a unique opportunity to leverage the interactions, conversations and links to add context and intelligence. By using Tags or by auto detection of terms and traffic patterns, some of the solutions can help create a layer of relationships and meaning on top of the content and link together disparate pieces of content, data and people for a complete picture.

Products in this category include: OpenWater, Connectbeam, Inquira

The 6th level in our stack consists of tools that try to bring together and connect data from disparate systems and source and allow the user to connect them and create custom applications and views on demand. By using open standards and web services, these tools called Mashups attempt to simplify our search for information across multiple systems by allowing us to pull from them without creating a seperate datamart as the baseline for data and corrleation.

Mashups are a hot topic for enterprise portals and enterprsie web 2.0 initiatives. IBM, Oracle and Micosoft are releasing mashup tools as well as a few smaller vendors like Jackbe and Serena

At the final level, we would all like to have a toolset that will allow us to discover ideas, bring important knowledges to our attention, alert us in real time to activities and trends we should be watching, feed us in real time information that is relevant to the tasks we are performing. No tools in this category yet but check again in a few months...

The ROI and game changing benefits of Enterprise web 2.0 internal implementations can go well beyond important outcomes like of employee involvement, morale and collaboration. It would come from harnessing the intelligence, context and knowledge within the organization (data, content and people) and outside sources to increase productivity, shorten development lifecycles, enhnace relationships make better decisions and inspire innovation.

Mr Patrick Chan, Chief Technology Advisor, Emerging Technologies, IDC Asia/Pacifc (wow fancy telling someone your job title.) Patrick did an excellent presentation on the future of web 2.0 and I was very pleased to see that he included "Virtual Worlds" in his predictions, somehow people don't align vitrual worlds with web 2.0 yet however it appears IDC is taking a stab at bringing virtual worlds into more minds, and noted that virtual worlds are COMING UP and that people like to have a separate online personality - this is good as long as the online personality is real too. The billions of dollars as is always fore told by IDC in these emerging markets were presented to the audience - no cheers hip hip hoorays - except maybe the silent ones in my head as i sit in the back of the room. CHINA & INDIA were singled out as the leading forces in web 2.0 is Asia, the take away message from IDC is web 2.0 is here to stay and will only get massively bigger for consumers and enterprises alike.

Regarding the Audience, when i walked in I was truly in awe at how IDC had filled the room to overflow but even though i could only see the backs of heads I could tell this was a web 2.0 event like no other that I regularly attend. The event attendees were mature, i don't think i saw a spiky hairstyle anyway, no fashion victims, these were regular everyday mature technologies managers from enterprises - more later.

Next up was Brad Garlinghouse SVP Communications & Community, Yahoo - Yahoo were the diamond sponsor for the event and Brad discussed the over whelming noise that social media presents (don't i know it) Of course the solution is YAHOO and how Yahoo is redefining email and services to allow for trusted communications - yes it was a BIG pitch for Yahoo - but they were the diamond sponsors :-)

Coffee break - food ran out - coffee ran out

Part Two - Along comes a slice of fresh air and i think was the winner of the most popular presenter of the day. Justin Lee Executive Director of E27 Singapore appeared on stage which to my knowledge must be his first major public speaking appointment. After declaring to this very mature audience how young he was (in comparison to those listening to him) he ummmed and arrghed into his entertaining and information packed presentation of how he got to be on stage talking about what he DOES know best Web 2.0. His journeys in Silicon Valley, bringing facebook to Singapore (he did introduce me to facebook and yes i am addicted now) thru to a video on web 2.0 where he bopped his head to the music as the video played and enjoyed the humour the video presented. Many a time the audience giggled as Justin relayed a funny situation. The presentation slides even were fun - but they held immense understanding and value of the web 2.0 scene in Asia - well done Justin except you neglected the Virtual World scene - maybe next time when social media members start moving over to virtual worlds like Twinity it will be in your next speaking engagement :-) Local web 2.0 companies like ZOPIM, Ping.sg, SGentreprenuers, yebber, NuffNang and others were presented as was the Hong Kong's web 2.0 scene which highlighted www.recruit.net Malaysia's web 2.0 vibrant scene heralded, advertlets which is the most well known blogging advertising network in Malaysia as well as Singapore.

The final presenter is one of Singapore's Legends Michael Neztley, Practice assistant Professor of Corporate communication, Singapore Management University - Topic Digital Natives, I have previously posted about Digital Natives here and I agree whole heartedly with Micheal on how the world of web 2.0 has changed the youth of today. In a decade or two we will be asking "what are textbooks?" Whilst i listened intently my mind kept interrupting me because I am a marketing person at heart and could not stop thinking how Yahoo the diamond sponsor must be fretting at how many times Micheal said GOOGLE. The other intersting think i noticed is that Michael is getting his students to use the Wetpaint wiki platform - good choice Michael.

Q&A followed and again I give marks to IDC for introducing a concept of the audience being able to write their questions instead of having to get up and ask (which we know is hard) BTW at TDM events we most often provide wireless internet so questions can be sent via notebooks to the event team, its a bit more modern than paper :-) Also to be applauded is the man from IE Singapore who is trying to implement blogging and web 2.0 within IE Singapore and asked for an ON THE SPOT solution of how to get it done :-) Mr Popular (Justin) seemed to get most of the questions.

Back to the audience, during lunch I spoke with two guests on my table and as i suspected one was an IT Manager from a major print company the other was an IT Consultant. They were both at the event to LEARN more about this WEB 2.0 world. BUT also as expected they weren't there to find ways of getting millions of people connected (as social media allows) they were there finding out how THEIR circle of influences could collaborate better with web 2.0. I think in this regard the event did not deliver this information. The focus as to be expected was more on the massive communication opportunities that web 2.0 has created. Enterprises on the other hand need to first connect their employees and then their customers and then maybe more.

My overall view of the IDC Web 2.0 Digital Marketplace event is WELL DONE IDC. Enterprise adoption of web 2.0 is critical and this event i am sure sent attendees away with fresh ideas and a percentage of the audience will be searching for solutions and opportunities to embrace the technology.

- Rating 4/5

Andrew Peters a.k.a. APLINK

1. How do people navigate? Do they type the URL or use the search to find a site, not bothering with the URL.
2. For a professional organization offering 20 – 30 different services, is it realistic to drive people to one page (the home page) and have them find the appropriate content from there or should we reverse the paradigm and try to get them to specific content pages and then allow them to navigate up and explore the rest?

URL vs. Search

When you look for a site, do you type the full URL of the site (www and all) or do you just type the main terms and look through the search results?

My answer will be “It depends”. Short, simple URLs I type, while more complex ones I don’t bother.

Two interesting recent articles talk about a worldwide shift to search based navigation:

In Japan, ads are starting to use search terms instead of full URL. As the article title says: URL’s are totally out.

Josh, at ReadWriteWeb wrote this week that The URL Is Dead, Long Live Search detailing a similar shift in advertising and use of the web by users.

Flipping the tree

If search is increasingly the preferred mode of navigation, where users land on the site will depends on the keyword used and whether they were placed correctly on the content pages or put solely on the home page. Which one is better?

We think that relevancy is the key. While it may be good for branding to have users always go to the homepage, the specific content they were searching for, resides at the leaf and directing traffic to the leaves was the goal of the home page to begin with.

Each leaf needs to behave as a landing page providing sufficient branding and clear navigation that will allow users to continue and explore up the tree.

Image credit: http://www.fisherkids.net/photo.htm

Welcome to the revolution.
We are in the Midst of redoing our website Edgewater.com and take advantage of the opportunity to examine recent trends and technologies and their impact on corporate website development. We’ll post some insights and share our thought process leading to the new site.

We have decided to build a new thing: a web 2.0 centric corporate site. Built upon the attitudes of web 2.0 and using some of the best practices, if not necessarily the flashiest interfaces.
We also decided to take a web 2.0 development approach as well. It means not spending months in requirement definition trying to envision future needs of our users. Instead we will take an iterative approach and release the site item by item as they are defined and implemented.

Yes we know the Agile movement had that down over 10 years ago but rarely externally transparent through each of the iterations. We intend to release each of the iterations. Put it out there and go back and improve one step at a time.
Our steps are basically:

1. Set a clear strategy and common frame of reference for how we see web 2.0
2. Select a collaborative platform (In our case, Sharepoint 2007 we had previously used for our Intranet)
3. Migrate the site as is
4. Start improving.

• Design
• Templates
• Content
• Keywords
• Rich media
• Collaboration
• Discussions
• Search
• Etc..

We hope this approach create a live and lively site that grows based on ever changing needs and priorities and is a perpetual work in progress.

We want it to be a center of our online presence but by no means the only online presence.

We hope it becomes a blueprint for the next generation of sites and their transformation for dynamic brochure-ware they currently are to true collaborative communities.
Let us know what you think of our progress.

For the last 3 years, web 2.0 and social networking have been all the rage in the Internet community. This is where the VC money is going, the media attention is focused and users are spending much of their time. Businesses are still trying to figure out what does it mean for them. Applying web 2.0 principals and attitudes to business and the enterprsie can be called enterprise web 2.0

Many tend to think that becoming a 2.0 organization as the use of flashy interfaces, communities, blogs, wikis and user generated content and tried to jump on the bandwagon by adding these to their sites without comprehending the deeper and more fundamental cultural changes that make these tools effective, and have seen little gain.

Web 2.0 is about attitudes and a new way of interaction with all constituents, customers, employees, and partners.

With all its hype, cool startups and sexy conferences, web 2.0 still baffles many business people who see it as a playground for kids (MySpace, Facebook, YouTube) or a get-rich scam for young entrepreneurs and VC’s. Many who have been through Bubble 1.0 would rather wait until the web 2.0 fad disappears to see what is left standing. Tim O’reilly has provided what many see as the most comprehensive definition of web 2.0. And while his explanation is very thorough, it is also technical in nature.

My favorite definition comes from Ian Davis who wrote:

“Web 2.0 is an attitude, not a technology. It’s about enabling and encouraging participation through open applications and services. By open I mean technically open with appropriate APIs but also, more importantly, socially open, with rights granted to use the content in new and exciting contexts.”

In my opinion, web 2.0 is indeed defined as an attitude that can be personal or organizational. A web 2.0 organization adds specific terms and values to its code of conduct and sets priorities and incentives to promote them.

We see web 2.0 attitudes, or what I like to call the web 2.0 spirit, as made of the following attitudes:

• Open: you don’t have to share your source code to be open but from the application to the users, the approach is open. Easy to integrate with, easy to add to. Built on Sharing. Open to new ideas, Flexible, Agile, Simple, and Diverse.
• Interactive: the interaction among users and active participation is a core element of Web 2.0. The ability of customer and partners to respond and engage in discussions, post reviews, comments, thoughts and ideas. Agree and disagree. Provide a different point of view. Support and promote.
• Transparent: Do not hide, lie, spin, manipulate, threat, or intimidate. The Internet walls are nonexistent and everything you say or do, internally or externally will be exposed. Therefore: Share as much information as possible, acknowledge mistakes, and explain decisions.
• Collaborative: Listen, encourage opinions and group decisions. True collaboration is a tremendous thing producing a result much greater than the sum of the parts. It can only flourish in a nurturing environment.
• Social: Web 2.0 is about building relationships, trust, playing well with others, give and take, respect of each player and of the social order that is in place. Social corporate responsibility, caring about the environment and about the local community are very important as well.

Andrew McAfee at Harvard likes to add the term Emergent, noting that out of many local interactions as web 2.0 facilitates, comes higher level structures. I’ll expand that definition to include emergence of order and structure out of the seemed chaos that is online interaction. It is the transcendence of web 2.0 communities that created Wikipedia.

What can be gained?

Enterprise web 2.0 promises substantial incentives for early adopters:

• Enhanced brand image, exposure and buzz. As influence circles expand, using new methods for communication and data distribution will reach an ever expanding user base.
• Improved customer relationships and increased loyalty. Customers will appreciate the new approach that respects and listens to them.
• Faster feedback cycle and agile response to market opportunities. By providing real avenues for customer collaboration and listening to chatter and monitoring usage, companies can create faster release cycles and quicker response methods.
• Improved utilization of internal creativity and innovation. When employees at all level are engaged is collaboration and discussion, great ideas and solutions can quickly surface, get reviewed and implemented
• Better lead generation and inbound traffic. Beyond search, activity in the social web can be a great source of traffic and referrals.
• New business channels. Whether it is finally establishing a DTC channel to leveraging social commerce applications, the new landscape provides new opportunities and new potential partnerships.

Adoption Challenges:

So now, show of hands. Has your organization embraced the web 2.0 spirit? Chances are that unless you are working for a web 2.0 startup, the most you have seen is the introduction of a limited corporate blog or a Wiki’s coming up on your intranet.

Many companies have a deep rooted problem with the web 2.0 spirit. It contradicts some of the fundamental principles of corporate mentality and therefore risky to undertake. In my experience very few companies have truly bought into this attitude and at the most are paying lip service by implementing some basic enterprise 2.0 applications to replace their failed and unused Intranets and KM systems.

Bob Warfield provided a very insightful discussion as to the reasons companies are wary of embracing web 2.0:

The headlong rush the Web brings to expose everything to everyone scares the heck out of most corporate types. Their two biggest requests for Web 2.0 initiatives are Governance and Security, and the reasons for it are exactly what we’ve been discussing. It isn’t just that they have “control issues”. There are sound business reasons why controls have to be in place.

Morale: Do we really want everyone to know how poorly some initiative is going? How will it help to tell those who can’t make a difference and would only be depressed by the knowledge? Is it fair to expose some internal squabble that was mostly sound and fury signifying nothing? Won’t that just unfairly tarnish some otherwise good people’s reputations and make them less effective?

Governance: Is the information legal and appropriate for everyone to know in this age of SOX and Securities Laws?

Competitive Advantage: Do I want to risk giving my competitors access to key information because I’ve distributed it too broadly?

Still, the web 2.0 spirit as reflected in the actions, habits and expectations of users WILL impact the way companies do business. Some of the most important trends include:

• Loss of control: as mentioned above, companies no longer have absolute control over their brand, products and services and how they are portrayed. From rumor sites to product reviews and fake commercials, people have many more ways to learn about you and form opinions.
• Opinions matter. 68% of shoppers read products reviews before making a purchase.
• Wider influence circles. Information (good and bad) can quickly spread through influence and social circles.
• Transparency is expected and recent cover-up attempts by companies like Merck and Bear Stearns were not tolerated.

Companies will have to adapt because the old practices are getting them in trouble and new opportunities for leadership position are being lost due to lack of clear web 2.0 corporate strategy or what we would call enterprise web 2.0

By embracing the new enterprise web 2.0 paradigm, businesses can create long lasting changes that will truly resonate with audiences beyond the quick fix of adding a marketing blog to the web site and some promotional videos. As these changes take time to implement, early adopters and market leaders can create a significant competitive advantage by differentiating themselves and reaping the benefits.

Let us know what you think

La presentazione fatta da Andy Denmark e pubblicata su Slideshare, anacronisticamente (sicuri?) parla di posta elettronica, partendo da semplici constatazioni:

• tutti la usano (anche se contemporaneamente ad altri mezzi)

• cattura l'attenzione per buona parte della giornata (non solo tramite computer, aggiungo)

• veicola tante e "interessanti" informazioni che rimangono chiuse all'interno dell'inbox

Procedure automatiche potrebbero offrire servizi a valore aggiunto consumando questi dati.

La presentazione descrive quattro possibili categorie di servizi che potrebbero interagire, o che già interagiscono, con la nostra posta elettronica.

[slideshare id=371001&doc=tripitweb20042408-1209065842262754-8&w=425]

----><----

Hai trovato questo post interessante? Sottoscrivi il feed completo e partecipa alla discussione

Dean Owen

One company, who has 200 Web servers and handles over a million transactions, only uses SSL for secure access.  We had a long conversation about other security strategies that included vulnerability management.  To my surprise, the company not only doesn't use this type of solution, they hadn't heard of the technology. 

With millions of people using the Web for banking, purchasing, selling and posting information, there is a substantial increase in network, database and Web application vulnerabilities.   In fact, Web 2.0 applications have 5 times more vulnerabilities then Microsoft products.  Companies need to research and implement vulnerability management solutions. 

There are many products on the market and even a few open solutions that can help companies detect and remediate vulnerabilities.  One of these companies is Rapid7.  Rapid7 provides a unified vulnerability management solutions for scanning networks, Web applications and databases.  This solution is perfect for companies who want and need to protect their complete network.  I had the opportunity to speak with customer of Rapid7 and found their product to be as promised. 

Il paradigma del mashup proviene dalla definizione del Web 2.0 dovuta a Tim O'Reilly (il web come piattaforma per creare, fruire, manipolare ed arricchire contenuti), consiste nell'aggregare contenuti, anche espressi in formati diversi, in modo da poterne apprezzare l'insieme.

Le piattaforme di mashup offrono oggetti per reperire immagini, video, mappe, feed, ecc. e modalità per combinarli tra loro.

I contenuti hanno associati un certo numero di dati (titolo, autore, riferimento geografico, ...): procedendo all'integrazione di questi (appartenenti a contenuti provenienti da sorgenti diverse) si ottiene il mashup.

Propedeutico a questa aggregazione è l'individuazione della semantica e della sintassi con cui esprimere i dati: questi, pur essendo correlati a contenuti diversi, se esprimono il medesimo "concetto" devono avere semantica e sintassi coincidenti. Questo processo implica quindi la determinazione di un vocabolario comune, una particolare istanza di un CDM (Canonical Data Model) il cui dominio è costituito dall'insieme dei dati appartenenti (o, qualora il formato lo consenta, coincidenti) ai vari contenuti. Il grosso del lavoro è questo, la progettazione, una volta implementato il framework il classico esempio del mashup tra le fotografie geo-referenziate di Flickr e le mappe di Google Maps è un gioco da ragazzi.

Il mashup rispetta le regole dell'integrazione dati, ma questo non è il suo scopo, ed il suo prodotto, l'aggregazione, non costituisce input per successive elaborazioni: il risultato, infatti, è destinato agli utenti e la fruizione avviene mediante un browser. Può essere paragonato ad una SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) i cui servizi sono gli oggetti con cui estrarre ed esporre contenuti (content service) e l'infrastruttura è il framework che ne permette la composizione e che eventualmente prevede anche modalità di censimento, organizzazione e gestione. I content service sono componibili tra loro in modi diversi, coerentemente con le necessità di chi dovrà avvalersene.

Tra le promesse del mashup c'è quindi l'aggregazione di contenuti, alla portata di tutti ed in linea con le reali necessità di chi ne deve poi usufruire: l'IT mette a disposizione degli utenti oggetti per estrarre contenuti e modalità per combinarne i risultati, gli utenti usano questi oggetti per reperire ciò che gli occorre (imponendo di volta in volta chiavi di ricerca e condizioni) e si avvalgono della piattaforma per combinarne, come meglio desiderano, i risultati.

Il mashup è uno dei paradigmi dell'Enterprise Web 2.0, il web come piattaforma all'interno dei confini aziendali: l'aggregazione, corrispondente alle reali esigenze, di contenuti riguardanti un certo soggetto (clienti, vendite, ...) con l'indubbio valore di poter disporre da ovunque dell'intero "dossier" e delle relazioni tra i "media" che lo compongono.

E' chiaro, però, che non c'è alcuna magia: non si può disporre di un contenuto non compreso nella progettazione o esposto seguendo un vocabolario diverso da quello di altri contenuti con cui si vorrebbe combinare; il mashup è alla portata davvero di tutti, ma solo dopo un'attenta progettazione ed un ponderato processo per l'individuazione del CDM.

----><----

Hai trovato questo post interessante? Sottoscrivi il feed completo e partecipa alla discussione

On one axis - Impact

On the other axis - Ease of Adoption

This used to be a trade off. Before Windows, ease of adoption was unheard of. Microsoft got the adoption by riding on the PC manufacturers. Then Google barged right into the top right hand corner with massive impact and totally easy adoption. There was a view that ease of adoption without lock-in is inherently a weak and unsustainable position but the lack of traction of all the Google challengers seem to be proving that this is not the case.

Classic enterprise software was in the big impact/hard to adopt category. This was where there was a trade off. You could build something that fitted into another vendor's ecosystem - easy adoption but limited impact - or you could work to create something that became an ecosystem by getting totally entrenched into major companies.

I believe those days are over. The new wave of Net Native Enterprise 2.0 software makes adoption much simpler and organic. There is much less need to (as Steve Jobs calls it) "crawl through the corporate orifice" to get adoption. You won't get VC to fund a "storm the barricades" type of frontal assault with big sales and marketing budgets.

This will probably limit impact, unless there is a network effect, however I see fewer sustainable network effects leading to Windows type dominance in future. For example, Wordpress and other blogging tools attempt this but I think it is a weak concept (much as I love Wordpress) as no blogging tool will get dominance and nobody wants to limit their network to one arbitrary set of bloggers.

That is probably the reality of Enterprise 2.0. Despite the great efforts of marketing departments to drum up new paradigms, we are simply into a very long and sustained roll-out of Net native versions of what we have always had in the enterprise. This will lift the boats of every enterprise software player that plays well in that environment and enables some new niche players to emerge, but I doubt we will see anything of the scale of Oracle or SAP emerge.

Most of the Web 2.0 start-ups that I am seeing fall into the low impact/easy to adopt quadrant. I am sure that statement will raise a lot of hackles and I am not trying to offend. I have worked in many start-ups and I am very aware that any traction looks like massive impact for a start-up and should be shouted from the rooftops. I am certainly not trying to rain on any parade.

The barriers to entry are now so incredibly low - use Amazon S3/EC2 for infrastructure, mashup code and deploy online, use RentACoder to get cheap brains. Get it out into the Blogosphere and let the widgets propagate virally. So no problems on the ease of adoption front.

But big impact? Go outside the Web 2.0 Bubble (I am not referring to financial bubble more like "boy in the bubble") and ask a random selection of ordinary people what recent innovations on the Net have made an impact on their lives? It is a bit sobering.

Usually massive impact means that the solution is solving some huge "pain point". Personally I think the Web works pretty well. Sure there are some minor annoyances but not anything that I would spend any money to fix. I can see some Web 2.0 tools making life easier, but in small incremental ways, not really life changing ways - not like the PC, email and search.

The reality is that the massive impact deals only come about every decade or so. I don't believe the next one will be in IT and I say that as somebody who has made his career in IT. The massive impact ones have to be addressing real "pain". There are plenty of pain points out there - disease and global warming come to mind - and the Web will have a massive impact on helping with these big problems by spreading knowledge. These are all about big science. Fix the problem and adoption ain't your problem (a real cure for cancer won't need a marketing budget).

Of course there is a ton of money to be made in media niches and office/Net productivity tools. YouTube is entertaining, like those best of home videos on cable, but changing the world? It is the breathless we are changing the world hype of a lot of Web 2.0 that is a bit old.

The one thing that stands out as big impact is social networking, whether for dates (younger crowd) or deals (mortgage payers). It fulfills as basic a need as email did. I suspect we are at the early stages of social networking and something new will emerge that makes it more sustainable. I do not buy the notion of the "social graph" as the new platform. I believe that Social Networks actually have a reverse scale effect. When there are too many people in one network it loses the whole point of a relationship, it just feels like a big anonymous place and we avoid it to look for more personal ways (online and offline) to build and maintain those relationships.

The Internet is The Platform and nobody controls that. Thats just fine with me.

The Internet Changes Everything. The Ease of Adoption/Impact quadrant is no longer applicable. Possibly Crossing The Chasm is out of date (I am still figuring that one out). In an open "services" Internet, the idea of a dominant platform is almost certainly dead.

During 30 years in the software business, I have got used to the idea that software is mostly pretty bad - no, lets be frank very bad. Pre the PC I learnt that software was monumentally hard to develop, always (I mean always) over budget and and the green screen text stuff was for people in back offices and data centers only. My first hands-on experience was with a Mac (great) and then decades of frustrations with Windows. (Full Disclosure, I love how bad Windows is, as the support problems enable companies like iYogi - where I am a co-founder - to thrive).

Wordpress is part of a new wave of software that looks like it may actually get it right. This looks like second generation Net native software. The first generation of Net native got the "wow" factor but rather the same way one goes wow when you see a dog walking on its hind legs (amazing that Rufus can do it, but he still does it very badly). The second generation takes Net native as a given and really focuses on usability. It has to be usable as adoption is based on thousands of individuals voting every minute with their mouse.

This is not how the Enterprise works. Somebody makes a decision and everybody has to use the clunky monstrosity. Of course people do still vote with their mouse but in destructive, passive aggressive ways that derail the project. These are the projects where the CFO at the post-mortem meeting asks "So are are you telling me that after 3 years and $x million we are facing a write-off decision? Can somebody tell me how we got here?"

I can see how systems like Wordpress can avoid this by growing more organically. Add a few colleagues/partners as posters. Add some traditional semi-static pages. Add some social network, a bit of video and a podcast or two. Pretty soon I have a modern CMS, with minimal implementation costs and all on a pay as you go basis.

This is what the analysts are touting as Enterprise 2.0. At a 30,000 foot level it makes sense. History has a way of repeating itself and Web 1.0 went from individual to Enterprise and the big Enterprise Net roll-out is still in full swing. Does that mean Wordpress type companies should hire some hot-shot sales guys to knock on CIO doors? As somebody who has knocked on a lot of CIO doors, I think not. The possibly vicious cycle goes like this:

1. Get VC by writing a Business Plan with aggressive revenue projections
2. Hire expensive sales guys who will promise whatever it takes to get that revenue target
3. Build whatever clients want/demand without the time to design it right
4. Clunky monstrosity here we come

This can end fine with a trade sale, everybody walks with some money vowing to do it right next time. Actually I think we have a lot of teams with precisely those scars who are determined to do it right this time.

The Net has not only changed the way we deliver software. More importantly it has changed the way people buy software. The enterprise gatekeepers have less power. The gatekeepers still have veto power but only if the software breaks the rules on privacy and security. It is not just start-ups buying this way, it is self-managed teams and departments. Try it free and use the credit card to buy a bit and expense it; the credit card vendors do a good job at expense tracking and those miles and other benefits are nice bonus.

Then at some level of usage, the corporate department may come in to give it the blessing and negotiate volume discounts. The trick is not letting those negotiations drive the featuritis that becomes spaghetti code (as in "we will buy 500 copies if you add xyz feature now").

I am hopeful that this is a genuinely new era for software and that the teams who have enough experience with the old ways will stick to their design vision and keep it growing with Einstein's famous phrase in mind:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler."

I spend my time working with “traditional” B2B Media companies, the industry specific magazines, web sites and trade shows that connect buyers and sellers in all major markets. These companies are often derided in the Web 2.0 Blogosphere as mainstream media or dinosaurs. So a quick reality check may be in order. B2B Media in the USA alone is a $31.1 billion revenue business and the breakdown of that revenue may surprise those still muttering about “dead trees”:

• Trade Shows $11.3 billion (36%)
• Print Magazines $10.9 billion (35%)
• Online “eMedia” $4.3 billion (14%)
• Other (mostly databases) $4.6 billion (15%).

The growth (28%) and the margins (25%) are in online. If you ask a random sample of B2B Media CEOs about their priorities, it is very clearly "online, online and online". Many now describe their business as online with print extensions. In some cases this is delusional, in some aspirational and in a very small number of cases it is already fact. Private Equity money is pouring into the industry and smart, aggressive new management teams are ensuring that the transition to online is real.

This leads to a lot of partnership opportunities. Web 2.0 start-ups want access to market and B2B Media want more online traction. But this is not the environment for bleeding edge technology. In Geoffrey Moore Crossing the Chasm terminology, you will find a few Visionaries and a lot of Conservatives, but not a lot of Early Adopters.

This relative conservatism suits the B2B Media audience demographic, which tends towards the Baby Boomer "digital immigrant" that still likes print but also uses new technology that crosses into the mainstream. RSS is an example. RSS is not a subject to quicken the pulse of a Read/Write Web reader, but the opportunities created for start-ups when something as fundamental as RSS cross the chasm to the mainstream are significant. The future clearly belongs to the "digital native" generation that grew up with MySpace and Instant Messaging, but in the B2B world the checks are still signed and deals decided by the Baby Boomer with bifocals scanning a print magazine.

B2B Media executives do not expect any silver bullet; no single feature will transform their business. They do need lots of new features that in aggregate make a difference to their mission of connecting buyers and sellers. This may suit the reality of many of the smaller, younger Web 2.0 start-ups that get referred as "a feature, not a product and certainly not a company".  These may not be the transformational deals that start-ups dream about, but they maybe the niche markets ("bowling pins" in Crossing the Chasm lingo).

P&G Primes Its Pinpoint Marketing

In the article, Elva Lewis explains how she will build 60 million relationships. This is a great example of how companies are changing their thinking regarding users and customers. What is interesting is how P&G plans to use multiple avenues to make customers feel like friends. They plan to use traditional marketing as well as new technologies to advance their strategies.

One thing that is clear from the article is that companies need to use relationship technologies such as online, web 2.0 and others to cost-effectively communicate with customers. By building new and enhanced websites, email, feedback and marketing solutions, companies such as P&G can be proactive and reach out to their customers.

Technology companies can learn a great lesson from this type of relationship building.

On a side note. I used the product box.net recently and was very impressed with the features and functions. Because I have a background in both applications and communications, I find it interesting whether large organizations will use this file sharing technology that resides outside the firewall. However, it was one of the easiest web applications to start using and the interface is clear. I started using it within my organization and I think that it is a great way to replace traditional file sharing techniques. The fact that I do not need a server and software to run this application, is fantastic. I remember spending months trying to purchase a server and then use Share-point to create this type of sharing. Not anymore.

Programming for the masses

For managers/business people who know what they want but have little or no programming skills, and want the job done fast. And for the masses with little/no programming skills (people like me) we have company's such as Tersus . Tersus is an open source platform for visually creating applications (truly visual, no coding needed). The company is currently building its own new web site based on the Tersus platform, also to be released as open source.

Coghead is also a visual platform for creating web applications. Their product is part of a bigger vision to be part of an agile office, of the kind that can easily be created at the coffee house near you, or in your preferred location. This makes sense when you consider consumer generated app's that are making their way into organizations with the promise to change organizations, and with it the way people can choose to work and make business -- why then not create small applications on the fly?

Small-medium size business could also be good candidates for such platforms. They can easily and cheaply create the app's they need and later maybe even make a few buck's by selling the app they've created on a Coghead or Tersus like site, or even better, open source them and release them for free to get others, to use, maintain or further develop the application.

Tools for organizations joining the big feast

And than there are the many new mash-up companies who offer to democratize the mash-up experience for the masses. Teqlo for one, which allows to build web app's with its drag and drop interface, has recently partnered with an Israeli company named Worklight.

Worklight allows organizations to export their SAP information as a secure feed service over their Myspace or other site/service their using, and will probably be offering many new features (apart from a secure feed for inside organization info and a mash-up tool) some time in the near future as part of the tendency to offer a complete service.

Something to keep an eye on is, how do you provide a bundled service with many features, without making it too constraining for the individual user and especially the individual worker? If I understand correctly Web 2.0 for the organization is about lightweight tools that provide the worker with greater freedoms to do the job the way he does it best.

Mine not their's

And to complete the picture, there are the new portals (not so new any more), such as pageflakes that have to my view redefined the term portal, just by changing the term "our" portal to "my" portal, generating a really convenient service that allows to find the many services I'm using in one focal point.

More on the future - the Zude way

And finally there is Zude (final just for now) which is still not available, and until it becomes available David Berlind from ZDNet, who has tried it and wrote about it extensively is a point of reference. Zude offers all in one -- a personal portal, a mash-up tool and agile way for creating small web app's, it will be offered for free. For more information read or hear David Berlind.

First and foremost, we are in the Generation of the User, or the "User Generation".  This means that as companies build products and solutions, they need to think about what is important to their users from a technology as well as usability standpoint.  These users include consumers and employees.  I know this doesn’t sound new.  However, the second part of the equation is where many companies fail. 

Second, companies must use every technology to understand their customer’s needs wants and actions.  Web 2.0 is about getting in the minds of your users to deliver the best products before they realize they need them.  Sound complicated?   It’s not.  If companies choose the right applications, platforms and technologies, staying ahead of the user is simple.  It just takes thinking ahead and building customer feedback and monitoring systems. 

As I mentioned before, I spoke with a ton of small companies in the last few weeks.  Of these companies, there were browser, excel, and application vendors.  All of which, seemed like they needed/ wanted to capitalize on the Web 2.0 boom.  Of these companies, only a handful had any “real” sense of building solutions for users. 

At the top is a company called HomeGrader.com.  They provide customer feedback solutions for the real estate industry.  They have the right idea.  Get all the feedback in an easy to use manner so agents can create a better environment for their users.  So far, this company has thousands of users and claims to have most of the top sellers in the US. 

The top sellers are early innovators, and companies like HomeGrader can learn a lot form this market.  Especially in the “User Generation”

Addition – I had a great conversation with 18 -  20 year olds who had just entered the work force.  Their combined comment about their companies’ IT systems was unanimously negative.  

“I can do more with my home computer than my work’s laptop”  “I am extremely disappointed in my companies ability provide the best working environment”  and finally, “I’m not staying here too long”

Employees are users too

One thing that is absolutely certain about technology is that new innovation always has three fates.  The first fate is when the technology solutions become a stand-alone solution for a long time.  Now, don’t call me insane, but I visited three customers in the past year that are using DEC equipment.  And, by the way, they are purchasing new/used DEC equipment as we speak.  If you don’t like DEC, then there are other examples such as Ethernet.

The second fate is when the technology holds on as a stand-alone solution for a few years.  There are many examples of this fate.  SSL for security, EAI for applications etc.  Some people may argue that these technologies are still available as stand-alone products.  However, customers want and companies are delivering SSL products with other security and access technologies.  Also, EAI products are now bundled with web services, SOA and BPM solutions.  The ongoing value of the original technology is based bundled solutions. 

The third and final fate is when technologies just don’t make it alone.  As with the second fate, the third fate has many examples.  Recently, technologies such as Symantec Metadata failed as a stand-alone solution.  However there is clear value in this technology bundled within other solutions for the enterprise and across the web.   

Portals

If you think back only a few years, you will remember a day when portals ruled the world.  They were going to be the end all of all enterprise application, WebSphere, Web Logic, Plumtree, and a host of many others.  The following is a section from Wikipedia

                “…many companies tried to build or acquire a portal, to have a piece of the Internet market. The Web portal gained special  attention because it was, for many users, the starting point of their Web browser.”

One of the major issues with these portals is the length and scope of development.  For example, a few years ago, I worked with a large mid-west enterprise to convince them that thin client portals where going to replace the major vendors.  The CIO told me that he had 15 people working on their portal project.  Fifteen people – working on a portal!

Portals Today

Stand-alone portals have befallen the second fate of technology.  They have become a part of other technologies and bundled as a solution.  Yes, there are some stand-alone portals but a majority of vendors will tell you (and analysts) that they are no longer in the portal market.  Even though they spent millions buying portal companies, they choose to use that technology as part of a bigger solution. 

Portals and Wiki’s

As with the portal, Wiki’s will begin to see their value diminished by companies, analysts and even vendors.  Need some evidence – take a look

• If Wiki’s were real, big application vendors would have bought one or made one
• Application vendors and EAI vendors will dominate through SOA and BPM
• Wiki’s are nothing more than a good web application that someday will be built on SOA technology using existing and legacy infrastructure and applications
• Wiki’s will be the “new” front end technology for SOA applications
• CIO’s will understand wiki’s right after they standardize on one data base provider – in other words – never 

In the end, Wiki’s will need the added value of other technologies to prove their importance and even their existence.  

If you step outside the vendor’s skin, you realize that enterprise customers need help determining what the most important applications are how to prioritize implementations.  To do this, it is important to understand that there are three categories of enterprise applications.  Although this may seem like a simplification, it provides a framework that companies can use to prioritize.    

Enterprise applications fall into three categories:

1. Persistent Applications
2. Continuous Web Applications
3. Synthesized Applications

Persistent Applications 

After working with multiple large and medium sized clients, it was clear that certain applications do not need to be changed.  Many of these applications consist of a fat client, so users can do most of the work locally and a server component for storage.  In the past, vendors have used the term legacy applications to describe this category.  The term “legacy” is no longer relevant.  Legacy means that it is old.  Many applications in this category are old and new.   Would you call Microsoft’s Publisher a legacy application?  No, but it is a persistent application in that, you may never change it.  Further, persistent applications are ones where a customer has made a decision to leave it unchanged.   

For instance, one large customer had a brand new CAD application.  The users never accessed the application outside of work and they would never consider logging in after hours.   This company wanted to switch to a web application or create services from the legacy.  After researching alternative options, they decided to leave this application alone. 

Note: Microsoft’s Outlook and Office may be considered the largest/ most used Persistent Applications.  Many companies may argue that other office and web mail companies are gaining market share.  However, the reality is that for now, Microsoft owns this space.   

Continuous Web Applications

As easy as Persistent Applications are to understand, Continuous web applications and synthesized applications are very hard to understand.  Just to make things more confusing, synthesized or SOA enabled applications can and usually are delivered as web applications.  So why do we need a distinction between the two?  The answer is simple and straight-forward, Continuous web applications are like monolithic and persistent application, only web apps are delivered over the web and through a browser.   

Web applications can be hosted on premise or by the application provider.  When the application is hosted and managed by the application provider it is called Software as a Service (SaaS).  In the minds of many vendors, the SaaS model is very different from the old Application Service Provider ASP model that failed as the bubble burst.  How the ASP model and SaaS model differ is for the vendors to explain. 

Note:  Continuous web applications can be delivered solely within the enterprise.  For instance many of the new wikis are just web applications.   

Another interesting side note:  I recently spoke with a wiki provider who would not let their employees work remotely and a remote access company that needed all their employees in one location.  These are the companies we rely on to drive enterprise web 2.0.   Whether wikis will survive in the long term or be replaced by Synthesized Applications such as SOA, BPM and Mash-ups, remains to be seen. 

Synthesized Applications

SOA is still confusing to many customers, users, business people and even many vendors.  Now, let me make even more confusing and then simple.  SOA applications can be delivered as web applications.  In fact, most SOA enabled applications are based on web applications.   

The major characteristic of this category is - using multiple inputs to create a single application.   These inputs can be many things including but not limited to services, processes, data structures, data, other applications,

So why choose “synthesized”?  Many vendors, customers and analysts use the term composite applications.  However, because of the over use of the term and the association with SOA applications it is important to create another category. 

Synthesized applications are much more than SOA.  Synthesized applications include enterprise application integration (EAI), business process management (BPM), Enterprise Service Bus (ESB), Service oriented architecture (SOA), and mash-ups.  Yes, mash-ups. 

Note:  “Synthesized Applications” is the only category that provides a foundation for companies to build a complete enterprise web 2.0 strategy.   

Application Framework

For many organizations, new technologies are those that were introduced three of four years ago.  For example, I spoke with a technology vendor that was implementing WLAN access to its executives.  That’s right, the executives…the next step was to certain employees and then, maybe, across the enterprise.  Can we expect customers and clients to embrace new technologies when vendors are struggling to stay ahead of the latest?   

The short answer is - yes.  Customers will embrace new ideas and technologies by creating a solid framework, building a foundation and managing changes.  As part of the overall “Enterprise Web 2.0 for the CIO” series, this blog provided the framework for companies understand and analyze how new applications will be built and/or bought and how legacy applications will be delivered. 

Time to vote on the next blog:

1. More on Enterprise Web 2.0 Applications
2. Next area of Enterprise Web 2.0 – Connectivity

Today, users, customer and employees expect to get information from anywhere and to work from everywhere in the world. From everywhere, they want everything. This means applications and services must be available in as many places as possible. If you doubt this, take a look at the exploding interest in Web 2.0, Office 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 and Enterprise Web 2.0. These 2.0’s are real and will drive how organizations communicate with customers and business partners now and in the future. For many companies, these 2.0 technologies will determine whether they are in business in five years.

In all the years of IT, we’ve never experienced such rapid growth in technologies and user needs that we have today. 2.0 technologies are revolutionizing business and IT. The word “revolution” may seem a bit harsh. However, if you look at Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Business Process Management (BPM) as evolutionary, than 2.0 is revolutionary.

Let’s take a look at SOA and BPM for a moment. Most companies have just begun to evolve and implement SOA and BPM. Even with evolutionary technologies such as SOA and BPM, there is a ton of conflicting evidence and analyst rhetoric about whether they will help companies succeed. For this reason, the decisions companies make today regarding SOA, BPM and 2.0 will either help or hinder their ability to compete and survive in the next few years.

EW2.0 is more than delivering web applications and providing portals for collaboration. EW2.0 is made up of three areas. Each of these areas is important to the success and level of acceptance of EW2.0. The three areas are:

1. Applications and application integration
2. Connectivity (Internet, wireless, network)
3. End-point technologies such as PDA’s and laptops

EW2.0, Applications and Application Integration
This includes portal, wiki, mash-ups and web technologies that companies need to understand and implement. There is a huge difference between web applications such as salesforce.com and web services applications such as eBay. Web applications are easy to manage and deliver. However, most applications can not be delivered as web applications. Legacy applications and databases need to be exposed as web services (SOA). These web services need to be orchestrated (BPM) into a composite (portal) application that can be delivered via the web. For this reason, companies need a solid yet flexibly infrastructure of applications and integration that provide a foundation for EW2.0.

EAI, SOA, BPM

• webMethods
• IBM
• TIBCO
• BEA

Tools

• Backbase
• Nexaweb
• JackBe
• Skyway Software
• Adobe
• Securent
• Crosscheck Systems

Web 2.0 companies - too many to list (another thing to write about)

• Wikis
• Mash-ups
• Search - Google, Yahoo, Ask.com, Gigablast

EW2.0 – Connectivity
Users today are demanding access to information anywhere, anytime. These demands will only increase in the future. What will our 15 year olds, who use portals such as Myspace and Google expect when they enter the workforce? They will expect “always-on” technologies and solutions. IT departments need to know and implement the correct connection and network access to be successful with EW2.0. This includes technologies and security issues and solutions.

Data Connectivity and Infrastructure

• Citrix
  
• Cisco
• Juniper

Feeds - Too many to list

Wireless:

• WLAN
  
• WirelessMAN
• WWAN

EW2.0 – End-User Devices
The third area of EW2.0 is end-user technologies and devices. These access devices provide the vehicle for employees, customers and partners to access information and applications from anywhere in the world. How companies utilize and standardize on these technologies is critical to their success. Companies need a framework making decisions on what types of devises are best for different organizations.

Roadblock – People
Even after understanding how the three areas of EW2.0 will improve or hinder adoption of EW2.0, there are other challenges that are important to consider. Changing how people work is a big roadblock to the adoption of any technology. Individuals such as customers and employees will always revert to the standard way of operating. Companies need to understand acceptance levels of users and management before embarking on the transformation to EW2.0.

What You Need to Know
There is an enormous difference between a web application such as Salesforce.com and a web service portal application. Companies need to decide when to build applications and when to purchase external web applications. Companies need a framework to help define organizational goals pertaining to EW2.0. With these goals, companies can list and prioritize applications. Then based on their understanding of the three main areas of EW2.0, companies can make informed decisions on whether to purchase or build, who can access, and how applications will be delivered.

Yael Talmor

Picture originally uploaded by pdcawley.
If I'd been asked to tag my interests they would probably include:
disruptive technologies, processes, change, innovation, organizations, and the idea of future scenarios.

I've been working with companies on building an on-line community of users around their product, and have recently began lecturing to organizations about the use of enterprise web 2.0 tools (always interested to know more about new tools, and also about methods of measuring these tools). You can find some of my thoughts on democratizing enterprises and more recent writing on social networking tools in the enterprise.

The Free and Open Source world has been and still is a great knowledge base of many of the current processes i'm interested in. For instance, the dynamics of social networking tools in enterprises, a culture of innovation, future organizations, democratization of certain enterprises, marketing techniques in a communication intensive world, and more are not new in the open source space, while many of these have been practiced by open source companies and communities for a while now.

At late 2004 I've started a database of Open Source companies. The database project, includes information about Open Source companies, their community relationship, ecosystem's and many more, and was a semi-research project. It hasn't been maintained for quite a while but can be found here. The database also includes a list of Israeli open source companies their area of expertise and their contact information.

I'm Founder/Director at Vaya Research Center for FOSS where we've been building a system that will provide support services for Israeli schools teaching and implementing FOSS. The project is a joint venture with ISOC IL and a major Israeli FOSS news and forum site called Whatsup.
The system is being written by Meir Kriheli and is based on Django, it promises to be a great Wiki style system. You can check it out at http://schools.whatsup.co.il (still in Beta stage and currently only for Hebrew speakers).