Even though not Twitter like, Oracle Collaboration Suite (OCS), which is an enterprise level product, already has forums and chat capabilities, and much more.
Where do you think OCS is relative to enterprise 2.0?
Jake
· 1 year ago
I heart OCS. We use it internally for corporate email, chat, files, etc. I can't change it to do social networking or bookmarking though. I don't have that type of pull.
I haven't spoken to their product team about Enterprise 2.0 recently. And if it I knew, I couldn't tell you :-)
Nice try though. If you want to sit with someone on the product team, let me know.
Kishore Balakrishnan
· 1 year ago
Search for "This person is either way too busy to participate or thinks I’m a complete tool."
"complete tool" is intentional ? Please clarify..
Jake
· 1 year ago
Kishore: Sorry, "tool" is an English colloquialism for a useless person or someone for whom you have no use. Kinda opposite of its dictionary meaning, but what do I know?
Ethan Jewett
· 1 year ago
Great write-up. I'm a tad late to the party here, but I figure better late than never.
My impression of the reason we have different approaches is that we're trying to implement in an environment that may make untenable demands on the software deployed within it. Interoperability and openness often clash with security concerns and politics.
Describing my (currently) favored approach of using external tools in conjunction with open internal tools as 'on the down low' is correct in a sense: I think developing prototypes outside of the institutional framework around the development process can be a powerful approach to introducing internal tools and (most importantly) triggering conversations.
This doesn't mean that the development and the tools are secret and unsupported. In fact, the goal of conversation requires that the existence of tools be shared and that we be willing to discuss the tools.
Example: External widgets on internal wikis raise information security issues around cross-site-scripting. Discussion: How do we balance increased (I assume) productivity from these widgets against the security tradeoff? Is it or is it not worthwhile to redevelop the widget in-house in order to change the security exposure under discussion?
These are complex discussions around subjects that most people (myself included) don't fully understand. There are issues around whether we are correctly portraying the the tradeoffs of information security and how we measure the return on investment of knowledge management and communication tools.
I think it helps a lot to have examples that we can use as discussion points and I certainly like being able to use my tools of choice, but the real goal is to accelerate the discussions and create solutions (both technical and political) that I hope will end up unifying the three approaches.
Jake
· 1 year ago
@Ethan: Thanks for adding to the discussion. The takeaway for me is that different approaches fit different situations. Craig makes a point on his blog about throwing up something internally and using it within the firewall, but as I mentioned in his comments, that approach assumes you have the hardware in place, which often isn't the case budgets being as tight as they are.
Our discussion really got me thinking empirically about how to approach the Enterprise 2.0 demand internally, which in and of itself is a positive. Anyone approaching an E 2.0 problem needs to understand the broad options and moving parts before continuing down any of the paths.
All Comments
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/cs/in...
Where do you think OCS is relative to enterprise 2.0?
I haven't spoken to their product team about Enterprise 2.0 recently. And if it I knew, I couldn't tell you :-)
Nice try though. If you want to sit with someone on the product team, let me know.
"complete tool" is intentional ? Please clarify..
My impression of the reason we have different approaches is that we're trying to implement in an environment that may make untenable demands on the software deployed within it. Interoperability and openness often clash with security concerns and politics.
Describing my (currently) favored approach of using external tools in conjunction with open internal tools as 'on the down low' is correct in a sense: I think developing prototypes outside of the institutional framework around the development process can be a powerful approach to introducing internal tools and (most importantly) triggering conversations.
This doesn't mean that the development and the tools are secret and unsupported. In fact, the goal of conversation requires that the existence of tools be shared and that we be willing to discuss the tools.
Example: External widgets on internal wikis raise information security issues around cross-site-scripting. Discussion: How do we balance increased (I assume) productivity from these widgets against the security tradeoff? Is it or is it not worthwhile to redevelop the widget in-house in order to change the security exposure under discussion?
These are complex discussions around subjects that most people (myself included) don't fully understand. There are issues around whether we are correctly portraying the the tradeoffs of information security and how we measure the return on investment of knowledge management and communication tools.
I think it helps a lot to have examples that we can use as discussion points and I certainly like being able to use my tools of choice, but the real goal is to accelerate the discussions and create solutions (both technical and political) that I hope will end up unifying the three approaches.
Our discussion really got me thinking empirically about how to approach the Enterprise 2.0 demand internally, which in and of itself is a positive. Anyone approaching an E 2.0 problem needs to understand the broad options and moving parts before continuing down any of the paths.
Anyway, all good stuff.