On-going debate with Prof. Andrew McAfee

Prof. McAfee at Harvard posted his reponse to MR's and my posts over last couple of weeks asking for a broader definition of Enterprise 2.0

and I posted this comment on his blog

"Andrew, your definition of the "new enterprise" (as you say let's stay away from 2.0) from a collaboration and conversation one (and JP's writing on a similar note) is hugely impactful. But there is another definition coming from the analytical world. With all the new data exploding from sensors, bar codes and financial world, there is a chain of thought that we should look at the enterprise world backwards from a predictive analytical perspective. I had an "old school" vendor architect call a couple of weeks ago and ask why in the new world we needed a General Ledger when a data warehouse of event and other tags could give us a far more comprehensive view of the enterprise. May not be as exciting as your definition, but to me it is just as revolutionary.

I help CIOs negotiate technology deals so I am focused on the cost of enterprise apps and optimizing from that perspective backwards. SaaS, utility computing, global delivery, third party maintenance, open source etc are business model innovations that CIOs could not take advantage of 3 years ago. All the other innovations you or I suggest ain't going to get funded unless we squeeze the cost of the old enterprise (and the new one) down dramatically.

There are other perspectives on what the new enterprise should look like - architectural (SOA et al), globalization (many old enterprise apps cannot cope with the increasingly "flat world").

I have had a couple of s/w CEOs call and complain that all these changes (what you have proposed, what MR has, what I have) will bankrupt the industry. To which my comment back is much as I would like to say I originated my thinking around delivery and biz model innovations, every one of my delivery suggestions is already being pioneered by some vendor or another. SAP has a robust on-line developer ecosystem, SDN. salesforce.com shares a number of its SLAmetrics on-line. SAP and a number of specialist vendors offer third party maintenance to Oracle customers etc. And customers appear to like these "best practices" so why not generalize and push the envelope for the industry?

The fact is if we are proposing a new enterprise world (2.0 or NextGen or whatever) we have to take a multi-dimensional view of it. As I wrote, if we are going to make a Bionic man, why not implant nuclear parts, not just fix his nose.

MR and I are not saying we should not fix the nose, we are saying there is lots more to be fixed. We find your contribution while exciting not comprehensive enough. You may not find other dimensions as exciting as yours, but I hope you don't continue to push for a narrow definition. Let's truly fix Steve Austin.  

BTW - on Wikipedia - honestly I could not give a darn what they decide. The new enterprise needs to be debated much more at HBS, Gartner, Sapphire, MR's Enterprise conference, one on one with our clients, and forums like our blogs. The community of software buyers and vendors needs to debate this not some "deletionist" who does not live and breathe the enterprise world."

Comments

[Thomas Otter]

Vinnie,
Both definitions have a place. just with a different term.

Andrew is right to look for a term that describes the use of emergent software in the enterprise.

You are right to point to a broader bionic shift.

But If things are as revolutionary as you and many of us belive, surely we could do with a proper word?

http://theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/a-rant-about-suffixes-especially-numeric-ones-with-decimal-points/

[Mohan]

Though I will wait and see how this interesting debate pans out, I like the more inclusive definition of Enterprise 2.0 from your -- Sandhill's -- end.

http://infosysblogs.com/managing-offshore-it/