Blog Posts From Jive Talks Tagged With enterprise_2.0

E2.0 Conference community site runs on Jive Clearspace

gia.lyons@jivesoftware.com — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:14:23 GMT

The Enterprise 2.0 Conference community site is running on Jive Clearspace 2.0. Wait until you see what’s coming in 2.1 in a few weeks.

Go join and enjoy!

Re-delete the "Enterprise 2.0" Wikipedia entry

communities@jivesoftware.com — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:00:06 GMT

"Enterprise 2.0" doesn't work as the name of a market. I get that it persists as a modification of Web 2.0 but it doesn't work long term for the name of a market. When everyone begins distancing themselves from anything associated with trendy nomenclature, no one will want to be the darling of something as perishable as "Enterprise 2.0."

So, if not Enterprise 2.0, then what? The only other concept that seems to connect is "Social," though I'm conflicted about that prefix. It's obviously just as prevalent as "2.0" and more accurately descriptive, but the word "social" is often met with a raised eyebrow in the enterprise. "Social" sounds like it's about wasting time though I imagine with enough momentum, the term could be redefined (people take the word "Google" seriously). The whole nomenclature debate reminds me of the hype cycle that the prefix "e" traversed in the mid to late 1990s and some of the "e"-words survived. Regardless, it would appear that "Social" is the moniker of our time. Check it out:

Mid-Late 1990s	Mid-Late 2000s
eMail eCommerce eBusiness ePinions eCards eLoans eToys eBay eTrade eRooms eRewards eLearning eBooks	Social Bookmarking Social Networking Social Productivity Social Media Social Software Social Tools Social Objects Social Commerce OpenSocial Social Computing Social Graph Social Web Social Text

Maybe the Wikipedians were far enough outside of the echo chamber to be able to see the forest through the trees. Perhaps merging Enterprise 2.0 with social computing is a better move, but we think that social software inside the enterprise has to be focused on productivity. That's why we use the term "Social Productivity" instead of "Enterprise 2.0." Maybe you could ask these guys about it this Friday.

Expectations for 2008

communities@jivesoftware.com — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:02:37 GMT

Big 2.0 shakeouts

Whether or not a "S&L part deux" recession occurs, Web 2.0 startups will be forced to become responsible. That means they'll need to focus on profitability or close shop. More of them will address industry verticals to help gain traction.

"Social Productivity" stampede begins: Utility and social applications converge

Google is the most visible company who could connect the dots to unify utility with social applications. Rumor is they'll do this under the umbrella of " Google Sites" which is meant to:

allow business to set up intranets, project management tracking, customer extranets, and any number of custom sites based on multi-user collaboration.

This will be fantastic for the 2.0 market overall by providing a clear, disruptive "sum of its parts" vision for companies. It will also clear space for other collaboration-centric companies focused on enterprise 2.0 to compete.

Look at what Google has staked so far:

Utility	Social
Docs, spreadsheets, presentations	OpenSocial (unifies information across social networks)
Calendaring	Orkut (Social Network)
Email	Sites (Intranet/Extranet Product)<--All Google's pieces organized by this
Instant messaging
VOIP and call management (Grand Central)
Mobile platform (Android)
Knol (wikipedia competitor)
Gears (offline mode)

Attention! (Next year's buzz.)

While this year buzz was Social Networking next year should be "Attention Streaming." Given how many social applications and connections we have, it will be important to easily keep track of activity, content, and people (signal vs noise). This will be particularly in demand for companies embracing Enterprise 2.0. There are a couple of approaches to this. "Groupthink," which is a top-down approach where attention focus is determined by activity of the masses. "User Activity" is a bottoms-up approach to taming the data firehose. Right now it seems these are addressed as one route or the other and no one has combined both. There's already some interesting standards and traction beginning.

IT big guys buy some 2.0 souvenirs

Though for the most part it will be more wait-and-see from the Big Guys, my bet is there will be at least one minor acquisition, potentially one of the many me-too Office-style applications or maybe an enterprise wiki.

Content management will specialize

Content continues to change and so does the role of Content Management Systems. As more content lives outside those systems and inside social productivity applications, I imagine that the way we'll need to control content will change, too. CMS will hone in on the types of content that makes sense in this paradigm, some will zero-in on heavy file-centric, structured industries. It will be interesting to see how this part of the market evolves.

Media properties will begin to focus on Enterprise 2.0 software

Given the above predictions, media folks will take advantage of all the interest around Enterprise 2.0 and begin to dedicate some brand new media properties to it. For now, Web 2.0 (consumer) and Enterprise 2.0 (business) have been mashed together and covered in the same industry rags like Techcrunch, Read/Write Web and GigaOM. My sense is that there's now enough independent gravity between Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 to justify targeted readership, editorial and (yes) advertising dollars.

What is the Market Size for Enterprise (2.0) Social Software?

chris.morace@jivesoftware.com — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:47:00 GMT

Gartner estimates the size of the Enterprise Social Software Market to be $227 million in 2007. They believe it will have a 41% CAGR to reach $708 million by 2011. However, their estimates for portal, collaboration, and content management in 2006 were closed to $9 billion, which confused our CEO, Dave Hersh, about our market valuation back in May.

I've been digging into market sizing numbers again because it gives a great window into how people are understanding this market and the speed at which it is evolving. Having tracked some of this information, I'm inspired to comment on the parameters used for sizing our market. It is clear to me that our market is significantly larger than Gartner currently estimates. For example, Sam Lawrence recently posted about the threat our market poses to traditional office software.

Microsoft alone makes over $10B annually with their office suite focused on personal productivity. As the delineation between creating and sharing documents collapses, their market valuations between these two spaces should merge. As Dave mentioned in his original post, analyst Michael Dortch probably summed up this perspective the best:

"Look, the long and the short of it is that everybody in every business collaborates, internally with colleagues and externally with customers, partners, and prospects, yes? So how big is the "collaboration market," however THAT's defined? I'd be brash enough to say that assuming that half of every business dollar is wasted or consumed by unspecified overhead, a conservative estimate of the extended collaboration market would be, say, half the worldwide gross domestic product (GDP) equivalent. Is THAT big enough??

If it's TOO big, let's come at it from the other, even more conservative end of the spectrum. Let's say that no more than five to 10 percent of the worldwide GDP equivalent represents a defensible stand-in for the collaboration market. That's still a LOT more than many IT-centric markets today, isn't it?"

People, like Andrew McAfee, have been working to draw a line around our market and he has contributed immensely to the understanding of the space, but ultimately still falls short of the entire vision. Jive sees this emerging market as " Social Productivity", which fuses social software and office features to create productivity apps that are socially driven. My questions to you are: Where do you draw the line when so many existing solutions have created such large markets and still fallen so short of the promise of Social Productivity? What do you suspect the size of the market to be?