The blogosphere has been grappling overtime with the Web 2.0 meme over the past week. Perhaps the most significant event was the release of Tim O’Reilly’s long awaited What is Web 2.0 article. I have no doubt that this paper will become a seminal work much like the Open Source Paradigm Shift paper he produced last year. In a separate posting, Tim even overcomes his hesitation about trying to define concepts too concisely to offer Web 2.0: A Compact Definition.
Tim is clearly reluctant to craft formal definitions with hard and fast boundaries. As he notes in a blog entry, “I tend to think about the gravitational core that holds a solar system of ideas and experiences together, rather than some kind of box to contain them.” This instinct is certainly a healthy one – especially in emergent areas characterized by rapid change. Stories and examples work far better in capturing the texture and richness of what is going on than abstract concepts. Trying to impose boundaries too early limits the imagination.
On the other hand, if we treat definitions with a little less respect - not as "formal" or "official", but as tentative efforts to identify and debate the essence of new phenomena - they can help to shed light on what is really new and different, engage those who are still on the periphery and perhaps shape on the margin the next wave of initiatives. If we approach them in the right spirit, debates around definitions and boundaries can help to generate productive friction, allowing us to see new dimensions of complex phenomena and leading to new insight.
In his What is Web 2.0 article, Tim offers a rich exploration of the Web 2.0 terrain in a way that certainly spurs the imagination and helps to clarify the diverse elements coming together to form Web 2.0. In particular, he offers seven principles that are shaping Web 2.0:
- The Web As Platform
- Harnessing Collective Intelligence
- Data is the Next Intel Inside
- End of the Software Release Cycle
- Lightweight Programming Models
- Software Above the Level of a Single Device
- Rich User Experiences.
As these headings suggest, Tim is focused on characterizing the technology elements that provide the foundation for Web 2.0. This is totally appropriate since Web 2.0 is made possible by new technologies and new ways of organizing technology. From my perspective, there are few people better equipped than Tim to identify and understand these technology elements.
Tim remains technology focused in his Compact Definition:
Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.
His definition emphasizes the role of the network as a platform, but spends the bulk of its time highlighting what is different about applications in a Web 2.0 world. I particularly like his formulation of the Janus nature of Web 2.0 applications, facing in two directions at the same time – on the one hand, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources while at the same time providing data and services in a way that allows remixing by others. These two faces explain both the opportunities for bootstrapping or scaffolding and the network effects that shape the potential for significant value creation. (By the way, I am intrigued with one possible definition of Web 2.0 that goes something like this: a network centric platform for bootstrapping businesses. I touched briefly on bootstrapping in general here, but I am struck by how powerful Web 2.0 is as a bootstrapping medium.) When you combine these two faces with the notion of software as a continually updated service, you have the formula for much more rapid movement in building large scale businesses.
This is a great definition for application developers. It helps them to understand both what is different about Web 2.0 applications and why developers should care about these differences. It is particularly appropriate given the Web 2.0 conference that Tim O’Reilly will be hosting this week. This conference will serve as another kind of “gravitational core” drawing technologists from all over the world trying to make sense out of the latest developments on the Internet.
But I spend most of my time dealing with business execs who view technology as an enabler - their natural (and not unreasonable question) is: so what does this enable? In his paper, Tim hints at some of the implications, but they are still largely framed in terms of implications for technology companies and especially software developers.
Tim talks a bit about Amazon and eBay as examples of companies that emerged in the Web 1.0 world and transitioned successfully into the Web 2.0 world - these are clearly much more than software companies. Many have written about the potential impact of Web 2.0 on media businesses and retailers and other kinds of distribution businesses. I, for one, do not believe that the impact stops there – it ultimately re-shapes virtually all forms of business activity (with the possible exception of snow removal businesses and lawn cutting services).
Since I deal with business executives in industries ranging from software to petroleum (no snow removal businesses as clients), I tried to frame a definition of Web 2.0 that makes it clear that the impact extends far beyond the technology arena:
an emerging network-centric platform to support distributed, collaborative and cumulative creation by its users
(This definition is developed in greater detail here) All businesses will be using this platform. All businesses had better figure out what it means to engage in “distributed, collaborative and cumulative creation” and adjust their business models and capabilities accordingly. This is not just an issue for technologists. (And, by the way, I have tried to frame the definition in a way that is not just relevant for business executives – think about the implications of “distributed, collaborative and cumulative creation” for policy-makers, educators or consumers).
Once business execs start to get their minds around the implications of distributed, collaborative and cumulative creation, two things happen: They begin to see how profound this is in terms of reshaping business activity and opportunities for value creation They are deeply motivated to understand the technology drivers that are making this more pervasive.
In reflecting on the many discussions of Web 2.0 that have surfaced online over the past couple of weeks, I have found it useful to step back from each contribution and ask three questions to test the value of the contribution:
- Does it really make clear what is different about Web 2.0?
- Does it tell us why we should care?
- Does it make assumptions about who should care – i.e. are we explicitly or implicitly addressing technologists, business people or some other constituency?
With these questions in mind, you might be interested in surfing through some of the other contributions to the Web 2.0 conversation that have surfaced over the past week:
- Chris Anderson at The Long Tail - where he suggests that "the lack of a crisp definition is a feature, not a bug"
- The Devil's Dictionary (hat tip to Pete Cashmore at Mashable)
- Barb Dybwad at The Social Software Weblog
- Dion Hinchcliffe at his Web 2.0 blog
- Steven Berlin Johnson at his own blog who helps us to understand why Web 2.0 is like a rainforest while Web 1.0 is like a desert
- Richard MacManus at Read/Write Web
- and, last but certainly not least, Ken Yarmosh at Technosight who helped to orchestrate a first-ever blogoposium where contributions can be accessed through del.icio.us or technorati.
There are some interesting graphic attempts to capture the essence (or complexity) of Web 2.0 at Flickr here (for Tim O'Reilly's original meme map), here, here and here.
Also, check out Richard Veryard’s early attempt to trace out the contours of SOA 2.0 - he suggests there is more to come on this one.
Technorati tags: Blogoposium1 Web2.0
This is a very insightful overview of some of the recent dialogue on Web 2.0. I was particularly intrigued by your reference to business impacts and wonder if you plan to expand on that topic. I spent some time debriefing with the usual suspects in SV last week, and have made an effort to describe implications to marketing in my current blog post @ www.marketerblog.net. By the way, your comment on Web 2.0 implications for policy-makers is spot on -- and it’s called the democratic process. (See de Tocqueville for additional information.)
Posted by: Leslie Jump | October 18, 2005 at 11:58 AM