In the post "SharePoint To Run Enterprise 2.0?", Sarah Perez at ReadWriteWeb presents nine companies - Awareness, Newsgator Technologies, Atlassian, WorkLight, blueKiwi Software, Connectbeam, Telligent Systems, Leverage Software and Tomoye Corp. - offering Enterprise 2.0 capabilities for SharePoint:
Nine companies are saying "yes," having recently launched Enterprise 2.0 offerings that integrate with SharePoint technology....businesses won't necessarily be ditching SharePoint anytime soon just to run the latest and greatest "Enterprise 2.0" technologies. However, that doesn't mean they're not interested in running Enterprise 2.0 apps - it just means that they'll be more likely to "maximize their investment" in SharePoint in order to do so.
Seemingly, a large part of the Enterprise 2.0 market will belong to Microsoft thanks to third-party vendors.
"The Hour Of The Vendor Strategist: Three Mega Business Trends Will Reshape The Tech Sector" by Thomas Mendel, Ph.D., Navi Radjou at Forrester:
The news headlines are awash with gloom-and-doom news about the mortgage crisis, the financial sector's meltdown, and rising unemployment. Western economies are undoubtedly plunging into a recession. Yet, Forrester encourages forward-thinking tech vendors to see the silver lining in today's dark economic clouds. Rather than channeling all their strategic thinking into dealing with the recession's short-term effects, tech strategists must reposition their firms to capitalize on three major business trends that will completely redraw the tech sector's competitive landscape by 2015: globalization 2.0, invisible IT, and the consumerization of IT.
"More thoughts on adoption strategies for Enterprise 2.0" by Matthew Hodgson:
This diagram implies that a successful social media implementation must have culture as its central concern. As technology-only based solutions does not consider culture it is less likely to succeed than the bottom-up or top-down strategic approach as they do not consider the social values and behaviour of either individuals or the organisation itself. That doesn’t necessarily preclude, though, installing technology and allowing a bottom-up process to take hold. This, though, would probably be considered a bottom-up strategy.With sufficient mass of behaviour, values, and opinion, the suggestion is that the individuals could change the group dynamic enough to affect change within the organisational culture. However, if the organisational culture is sufficiently strong, through, it would resist change and may even cause the bottom-up strategy to rescind.