In earlier posts on KM 2.0 I’ve critically reviewed many interpretations of aspects of the “2.0” trend relating to the idea of KM 2.0. Of course, such interpretations don’t end in April 2008, but have continued since then, and, if my purpose was to complete an up-to-date survey, I could continue my critical discussions through many more posts like the previous ones. However, I think my blogs up to this point have clarified the character of “2.0” phenomena sufficiently that I think it’s time to provide my own interpretation of “2.0” trends and of the character of KM 2.0 in particular. The next installments in this series will provide that interpretation, specifically an interpretation of the relationship between Knowledge Management and what I will call the “2.0” cluster. Here’s the first of the set of final installments in this lengthy series.
For about five years now, the “2.0” meme has been circulating in organizations. It began with the introduction of the label “Web 2.0” to describe those IT applications that applied web technology to social interaction on the Internet. Thinking about Web 2.0 a bit more abstractly soon led to two closely related categories called “social software,” and “social media.” These categories overlap with, but don’t quite coincide with, “Web 2.0,” since both can be associated with applications that precede Web 2.0 and can, conceivably, also include projected existing or projected Web X.0 (Web 3.0, web 4.0, etc) applications.
Applications related to all three of these categories first included blogs, wikis, social network analysis, social networking applications, collaborative content tagging, folksonomies, community support/collaboration software, and project collaboration software. But as time passed, these categories came to include many web services applications, “mashups,” digital videos, podcasts, social bookmarking, news aggregation, and virtual environments.
Some time after the introduction of Web 2.0, some enterprising observers (beginning with Andrew McAfee in March of 2006), viewing the beginning of a trend to bring Web 2.0 tools inside the firewall, began talking about “Enterprise 2.0” as a type of enterprise that has implemented “social software platforms” including Web 2.0 tools for purposes of increasing social connectivity, collaboration, and decision support within the enterprise.
The KM 2.0 meme surfaced independently and before “Enterprise 2.0” in the fall of 2005 and has been gradually spreading ever since. IBM Global Services picked up the meme in 2006 at about the same time as the appearance of Enterprise 2.0, and lent considerable weight to its circulation. By the fall of 2007, with “Enterprise 2.0” rapidly gathering a buzz, and, I think, reinforcing “KM 2.0,” the KM World and Intranets Conference, had made “KM 2.0” the theme of their 2007 conference.
Since then, the discussion of KM 2.0 among practitioners has accelerated, including favorable comments about it expressed by KM notable Tom Davenport, but there’s no consensus about whether “KM 2.0” is a useful notion, indicating a major new beginning in KM, a sort of ‘second chance.” And there’s also no consensus on what’s meant by KM 2.0, or how it relates to KM, or more generally, how KM relates to Web 2.0, social software, social media and Enterprise 2.0.
By the “2.0 cluster,” I mean Web 2.0, social software, social media, Enterprise 2.0 and KM 2.0 – all current 2.0 memes. In the posts, I’ll offer my understanding of: each member of the 2.0 cluster, the relationships of each member with KM, and also my reasoning in developing this relationship. After I do that, I’ll end by considering a recent and, I think, mistaken conjecture made by an Enterprise 2.0/social media enthusiast that the “KM” and Social Media (SM) movements “are locked in an undeclared cultural war for the soul of Enterprise 2.0.”
To Be Continued