2008 will probably be the year in which corporate Intranets and their associated Knowledge Management environments will get social. Products like IBM Lotus Connections and Microsoft SharePoint have already incorporated social networking capabilities during 2007 with better or worst luck, but we will see how this feature will increasingly become the keystone of enterprise social software products. Networks and people contacts will take place of traditional address books, helping employees to meet more people, locate experts and work with them.

Additionally, there will definitely be more room for integration. We will see how Enterprise Web 2.0 social software will not only try to leverage corporate knowledge as far as possible, but also Internet knowledge residing in open services. As an example, in this year’s Lotusphere conference, IBM has just 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, this is, an Internet SOA where the 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. The fact of using Internet as a source of data in the enterprise context will not only give these new formats and models quite a big impulse for adoption and standardization, but also will help to replicate this new distributed approach behind the firewall.

This is slightly different to what we are accustomed to see in our organizations, where SOA is strongly tied to protocols like SOAP and standards like WS-*. Hence, we will see how these enterprise service-oriented architectures are reinvented with unexplored possibilities, such as original and augmented opportunities of creating and utilizing mash-up applications and widgets as part of our daily jobs. Furthermore, it will be nice to see how the dimensions of this integration scheme become wider, involving mobile devices which will use the Web as a source of knowledge throughout light-weight formats like RSS or ATOM over the HTTP protocol.

Finally, it is 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. Regardless of the search algorithm being used, users need to be provided with the ability to jump from one page to another without need to refine the search conditions. This is something that is empowered with the often self-referencing community of bloggers.

Note: This text I have written is an intellecutal property of my company (Grant Paper). Be careful if you want to reference it.

Siguiendo con el tema de los modelos de negocio en Internet que inicié con el post justo anterior, me ha llamado muchísimo la atención esta entrada en el el blog de Jesús Encinar, CEO de idealista.com, en la que hace un resumen y traducción al castellano de una charla de Chris Anderson, editor de wired.com, en la conferencia Nokia World 2007. Es un auténtico must-read. No dejeis de leer el resumen ni ver el video.

Con Publicidad. Sólo y exclusivamente. Así de fácil … o por lo menos eso dice Jakob Nielsen en su AlertBox. De esta forma, sitios Web como los mencionados en el título obtienen dinero directo por medio de las nuevas plataformas de publicidad como Google AdSense, que funciona de tal manera que cuanto más clicks hagan los usuarios en los links anunciados, más dinero obtienen el servicio (Facebook, del.icio.us) y la plataforma (Google). Por esta razón estos sitios deberían tratar de captar cuantos más usuarios mejor (+ usuarios -> + clicks -> + money). Y lo hacen, vaya que si lo hacen! O sino, para que os pensais que estos sitios ofrecen Web Services, APIs, etc etc? Pues para eso, para convertirse en imprescindibles, para que otras aplicaciones utilicen sus datos, y a la postre el sitio obtenga más relevancia y así mas usuarios. Es curioso como esta filosofía responde a una ley que formuló Jakob Nielsen (sí, otra vez él) y que dice que estos sitios están mejor diseñados cuando se aprovechan del hecho de que los usuarios gastan la mayoría de su tiempo navegando por otros sitios web que no son el tuyo. Que crack el tío.

Otro fundamento sobre el cual hacer que la publicidad funcione a través de un mayor número de usuarios, es el modelo de negocio adoptado por el sitio Web. Así, el modelo económico “long tail” (la larga cola) postula que en medios de distribucion como Internet en el cual se puede hacer llegar de todo a todos, lo mejor es ofrecer especialización de productos. Así, en las tiendas on-line de Internet, la demanda de productos que son dificiles de encontrar por otros medios es mayor que la demanda de productos más comunes. Y este modelo parece que es rentable, incluso si los productos “raros” de mayor demanda son más baratos que los “comunes” de baja demanda (justo al contrario que el modelo de negocio tradicional en el cual vender más de lo más caro es lo que funcionaba). Bueno, a lo que iba…. + demanda -> + usuarios -> + clicks -> + money.

La semanada pasada tuve la oportunidad de atender a una conferencia sugerentemente titulada “Web 2.0 – Nuevas oportunidades de negocio en Internet” que tuvo lugar en el ¿paraninfo? de la increíble Universidad Laboral de Gijón y que fue organizado por el Cluster TIC. Con un entusiasmo inversamente proporcional a la puntualidad con la que reporto sobre este tema, os voy a resumir mis impresiones sobre lo que allí se discutió.

• Para empezar, una presentación técnica sobre qué demonios es Web 2.0, y quien mejor que Labra, director de la EUITIO y gurú de la Web semántica (y todo lo que sea Web) a tiempo parcial. Se repasaron los 8 pilares que Tim O’Reilly expuso en su día como los fundamentos de la nueva Web, allá por el 2004. Si me dieran un euro por cada vez que alguien me los ha contado ya no me sentiría tan mal por no haberme tocado El Gordo de navidad. Por lo menos esta vez sirvió para algo e incluso me quedé con algunas perlas como “El futuro de Web 2.0? No lo se… lo único que sé es que no es una moda que va a desaparecer. En todo caso evolucionará, porque se nos han dado unos derechos a los usuarios que no vamos a estar dispuestos a perder”. Amén!!
• Como segundo plato tuvimos una mesa redonda sobre Travel 2.0 (… ampliando el Universo 2.0 …) con Tirso Maldonado como primer ponente, un auténtico showman que amenizó la jornada con una presentación muy interesante sobre “El Viajero del Siglo XXI”. Una visión pragmática de cómo se puede utilizar la nueva Web y sus efectos en red para algo tan convencional como viajar. Me gustó, y mucho… ya que realmente hizo honor al subtítulo de las jornadas. Acompañando a Tirso estuvo Fernando Corral, director del Hotel Furela y árbitro de fútbol (no sé cual de las dos profesiones es la que ejerce en sus ratos libres). Fernando tuvo que haber recibido tarjeta amarilla porque su presentación fue sin duda la más aburrida. Nada nuevo, vamos, que los hoteles tienen que aprovechar las redes sociales y la colaboración on-line como herramientas de marketing (positivo si hay vino en la cama, negativo si hay cucarachas).
• Tras la mini pausa del café, segunda mesa redonda del día. Esta vez, Media 2.0 (… odio el 2.0 …), es decir, la nueva web en los medios de comunicación. Chapeau por la organización. Vaya dos pedazo de profesionales hablando sobre el tema, Ismael Mafria (director de ParaSaber.com) y Roberto de Celis (abc.es). No contaron nada nuevo (más bien todo fue viejo, con transparencias sobre la evolución de la Web etc…) pero simplemente ver a dos periodistas hablando sobre Web 2.0 y como ésta les ayuda en sus negocios realmente me ayudó a entender que este fenómeno no tiene nada que ver con la tecnología, si no que es una nueva filosofía de comportamiento colaborativo, utilizando páginas aplicaciones Web como mecanismo.
• La tercera mesa redonda del día trataría sobre las oportunidades de negocio y soluciones para la Web 2.0, con la colaboración de Orlando López (director de Vorago) y Antonio Lana (director de IBCMass). Más de lo mismo. Antonio explicó sus motivaciones empresariales sobre la Web 2.0, y Orlando básicamente se dedicó a hacer una demostración práctica de uno de sus productos de cuyo nombre … no me acuerdo. Si alguien iba buscando algún tipo de consejo para crear una startup Web 2.0, seguramente se hayan marchado igual que entraron, y mejor hubieran gastado su tiempo patinando en la pista de hielo que había en el patio. Lo que sí eché de menos alguna que otra explicación de como las empresas que llevan años funcionando pueden usar Web 2.0 para sus intranets (gestión del conocimiento, laboratorios de innovacion, comunicación, marketing, …). Para la próxima seguro!
• Por último, y ya con el estómago arrugado como un higo paso, la presentación sobre Web 2.0 en las administraciones públicas …. bueno, en el Principado, vamos. María América (que seguro que estaba revisando pliegos hasta última hora) no pudo asistir, y envió a uno de sus compañeros ha hacer la ponencia. Fue la misma que en el Tecnimap, ya que por desgracia las cosas no han cambiado mucho en dos semanas. Y digo “por desgracia” porque parece que la Administración no tiene muy claro como sacar el máximo provecho de la nueva Web 2.0. Me parece excelente que se preocupen, que estén al día y tengan ganas, pero les falta orientación. Se me ocurren miles de ideas sobre aplicaciones Web 2.0 en el ámbito público, así que espero que algun día a ellos también.

Resumiendo, excelente iniciativa, algunos buenos ponentes y poco tiempo para la discusión. Estuvo bien, espero que se repita!

It’s been a long while since I wrote my last post, but it was just that I have not been very inspired…. However, while I have made very good progress on my investigation work for my company, I’ve got a few pieces of thoughts I would like to share. This time is about Social Networking Services like Facebook, MySpace (or even LinkedIn) and their suitability as corporate Intranet tools. We all know that many firms are begining to embrace these services as part of their corporate Intranets, probably motivated by the null costs on implementation and deployment, but forgetting about the security issues this approach could bring on. Below is a list of 3 big reasons why these open social networking services must not be used as Intranet tools:

• Security. 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 designed for business purposes and companies do not want their delicate organizational information to be openly published without having the ultimate control of who can access that information, since that corporate data is not hosted behind the firewall. In any case, many supporters claim that all what other users can learn about you is the name of your company and not much more, as long as you don’t store private documents in that service.
• Not enterprise ready. These free services have not been designed to be used as corporate tools and they are losing enterprise core features, needless to say integration with other organizational Intranet tools. Users can’t make the most of them in an enterprise context: most of the applications around Facebook are too frivolous (i.e. 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 (probably with too much personal information) with co-workers or customers. Consequently, these people are likely to create a professional orientated alter-user to be used for business goals only. This effect is just the opposite of what Web 2.0 is promoting, this is, a unique e-identity for each one of us, being globally recognized trough our connections and contributions.

Well, this is my position about this. I see more risks than benefits for companies if they want to use Facebook as their corporate Intranets, but sure you will have more thoughts about this topic.
Note: This text is an intellecutal property of my company. Be careful if you want to reference it.

In one of my previous posts I mentioned how difficult is to measure the benefits of Web 2.0 for Knowledge Management in terms of ROI. Also, this topic has brough on many voices out there in the blogosphere. As discussed, the knowledge of workers is something hardly measurable but very valuable, and the benefits should be measured by the business impacts, like business eficiency or the competitive advantage, and ROI is not the proper tool to do this.

However, if we want to measure the benefits of KM 2.0, we need to focus on the core value, this is, the network effects. For this purpose, we can use more appropriated tools like Social Network Analysis (SNA), which provides a collection of methods to measure the relationships and flows between any information/knowledge processing entity in a social network. Things like “Degrees”, “Betweenness”, “Closeness” can provide significant figures that might help to understand how positively or negatively a social network is working. Come on, read this gem taken from the IBM Research Center at Watson:

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 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.

In this manner, SNA can provide managers with a clear picture of how employees are working together, and measure the benefits of Enterprise Web 2.0 for Knowledge Management in terms of social capital. As Jim Petrassi and Sharon Whitaker state in their paper “Strategic Innovation and the Impact on Collaboration Technologies”, many leading companies are using SNA tools and techniques to identify the “go-to” expert, find technical knowledge and expertise, identify obstacles to collaboration, develop knowledge transfer programs and develop targeted team building programs.

Recapping…if you are asked to show the ROI of KM 2.0, just reply that if they want real figures, they should do SNA.

There is an obvious convergence between Web 2.0 and SOA, more concretly between Mash-Up applications and Composite Applications. On one hand, the content of a Mash-Up application is composed by the aggregation of different sources of data, consumed from services offered by other Web applications over the HTTP protocol. On the other hand, a Composite Application in a SOA does not have to be Web-based, as the content is built up from business services connected to different sources of data like Databases, EJB or MQ using disparate communication protocols like JDBC, JNDI or JMS respectively.

Therefore, a Mash-Up application can be defined as a SOA Web Composite Application where the source data is gathered from Web services from other Web applications. This integration scenario is not new, but the innovation introduced by Web 2.0 is in terms of how these services are provided with new technologies like RSS and how they are consumed in the browser side with JavaScript.

Under this framework, the roles of RSS and Mash-up editors in the world of enterprise Knowledge Management are quite interesting. Talking in SOA terminology, a Mash-Up editor (like Yahoo! Pipes) can be defined as a Knowledge Integrator where disparate pieces of information/knowledge are aggregated and transformated into one centralized output that can be consumed by any other Web application. Additionally, all the RSS feeds can be seen as the Knowledge Bus where all the information/knowledge is flowing in both directions (producer/consumer can interchange roles) and where application should plug in to gather information.

I am really enjoying my current assignment. I am doing a research work entitled “Next Generation Knowledge Management with Web 2.0″ where I investigate the benefits of adopting Enterprise 2.0 as a KM enabler. During the past few weeks I have been focusing on strictly analyze why Web 2.0 should be embraced by enterprises, and the following came up.

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, just because they are on top of Gartner’s hype cycle peak of inflated expectations, or driven by a widely spread 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 miserably fail in the enterprise context. Therefore, companies should do a deep “soul search” in order to strictly analyze how an Enterprise 2.0 strategy should be incorporated into their organizations and find out in which business area the benefits of Web 2.0 can be fully harnessed. Thus, the best approach of embracing an Enterprise2.0 strategy is in the field of Knowledge Management, where one of the major benefits is that knowledge is open and globally visible to 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 continuous, linear build-up and almost never sudden and pronounced. This is driven by the fact that the ultimate objective of this strategy is improving the knowledge of employees, something that is hardly measurable but very valuable. Then, the effects of KM 2.0 should be measured by the direct impacts on the business outcomes (like business eficency or competitive advantage) and not by the ROI, which is more suitable for tangible assets. Having said all that, Enterprise 2.0 for Knowledge Management is not a question of “how to save money” but a question of “how to stop losing money”.

I am not the only one who think that Enterprise 2.0 and KM 2.0 are separate concepts, the first one being a enabler of the second.

Note: The quoted text is an intellecutal property of my company. Be careful if you want to reference it.

Luis Suarez over ELSUA has posted a series of 6 posts talking about the impacts of Web 2.0 on Knowledge Management. In fact, Luis transcripts with his passionate style the highlights of a podcast held by Jon Husband and Dave Snowden talking about this same topic. It is worth having a look to give an overview of the next generation KM and how this discipline is finally compelling again thanks to the tools introduced by the new Web.

I personally contacted Luis after reading this post, just to ask him what is the role of these new tools in the world of KM. I know dozens of gurus who say that it is a worrying thing that many companies are trying to enable a KM 2.0 strategy by means of purchasing a product. I fully agree on the fact that in order to establish an effective KM strategy with Web 2.0, companies must be very careful to make sure they understand the network effects of the new Web. They should also assure that these ideas are not wiped out by a product that will be probably missing key features. But if everybody should use Blogs, Wikis, Social Bookmarking, etc…and we know that there are products like IBM Lotus Connections and Confluence which packages all this into one integrated product, why are not these IT products suitable for KM 2.0? How a network can be created without these tools? How otherwhise KM 2.0 can be enabled? Luis then replied with a ray of light:

It is absolutely true that there should be tools and products, otherwhise nothing could be done. But what we are talking about here is that one the major issues of traditional KM is the fact that during a lot of years, the strategies were focused on procesess and tools, rather than knowledge workers, meaning that people could not influence the way in which these tools were utilized. Definitively, tools need to be there, but with a minimal influence and always available to users, not the other way around. They are a mechanism to achieve a goal, not the goal itself, like it used to be in traditional KM. Here is where the real change relies on, as Web 2.0 and KM 2.0 are founded on the principles of openness and free knowledge sharing, using tools we all really know and like, without imposed structures.

Take that!