Enterprise 2.0 To Become a $4.6 Billion Industry By 2013

Forester are predicting this huge spend on bringing web 2.0 to the enterprise. I find myself telling people more and more that if they are spending loads of money on this stuff they are almost certainly doing the wrong things.

If any businesses want help making Forester's prediction look silly they know where to find me .....

Comments

[david cushman]

$4.6billion is so low by 2013 its laughable. Bit of context. The classic car market in the UK alone is worth just a little less.

[Paolo Valdemarin]

I think it could be an accurate figure.

$4.6 Billion by 2013 will be worth what? 50 Pounds?

;-)

[Lee Bryant]

could we outsource all our projects to you for free please? ;-) Kthxbai

[Dan Thornton]

I don't know why I tend to agree that spending lots of money on social media is wasted until you've laid some more groundwork, and rebuilt your organisation...

But if you click my name, you'll see my own, more small scale example!

[Brendan Thesingh]

Agree, that 4.6 billion is not really that much. But even then it will all be gobbled up Microsoft, SAP, Oracle, IBM, the big consultancy firms etc. The Usual suspects who in my opinion overcharge and underdeliver. Furthermore they will act as if it is about technology while it is really about culture.

[Lee Bryant]

Brendan - I think there is still a great window of opportunity for new, independent consultants and vendors to show that they can do a better job with this money than the usual suspects. IBM, though, probably deserve some credit for trying to innovate.

In an ideal world, as Euan says, this should not cost any where near what enterprises have become used to paying for IT. But the reality of providing connected social software infrastructure to hundreds or thousands of people (unless you think companies are ready for SaaS pure plays) is such that the figure quoted by Forrester is probably not that high.

I don't buy the argument that people will do it for themselves, because whilst geeks surely will, this will leave behind the majority of workers inside large firms today, which is not a desirable outcome.

That does not mean that fancy consultants have to come in and do it all for you, but I think there is a balance between DIY, IT-provisioned and (at least in the early years) externally facilitated social computing systems.

[Euan W Semple]

The big things that matter are keeping it simple and a sense of collective ownership - both of which get harder if you take the familiar big systems approach.

As a footnote I had occasion to check up on our old systems at the BBC and our forum, the software for which we bought for £250, has just passed 29,000 registered users.

[John Howard]

Ahh so now we can track how many employees the BBC has using talk.gateway! Yeay!! ;-)

[Euan W Semple]

Yeah I thought that but I reckon 29,000 is probably more than are left!

;-)

[Lee Bryant]

Your BBC forum story is starting to remind me of the 'one small aubergine' from Goodness Gracious Me ;-)

Extrapolating from this to suggest that large enterprises can transform themselves and their culture by installing a forum (or indeed any software) is a bit of a stretch.

I really, really want to share this ideal, but all my experience tells me that just installing tools is not enough.

Anyway, I guess keep it simple and don't repeat the mistakes of big systems IT are good things to keep in mind.

[Euan W Semple]

I am confused by your responses Lee.

I didn't say people don't need help, I didn't say we don't need something between Microsoft and a go it alone geek and I didn't say that installing tools was ever enough.

[Lee Bryant]

Sorry - I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I am just trying to query the idea that spending money on enterprise social computing is wrong, and to get a sense of exactly what you mean by 'if you're spending lots of money then you're doing it wrong'.

Like David said, $4bn is not much in the wider scheme of things, and a lot less than the appalling old-skool enterprise software market, and I think we have a huge opportunity to do it better.

I think, as usual, we violently agree - it's just a question of emphasis.

[Euan W Semple]

It seemed like a lot of money to me and the point of the original Forrester story was to make it seem like a lot of money. I worry that the same machine that has fleeced people for over priced and under delivered systems is lining up to take over something that should in essence be simple and cost effective.

Clearly I don't think spending money on social computing is wrong but I would maintain that beyond an optimal point there is a negative correlation between the amount you are spending and the likelihood of your attempts being successful!

[Brendan]

Lee, I agree with you. I myself have introduced a wiki together with a small company in an enterprise. Also as webmaster I guide users towards all sort of free or very affordable online solution instead of high priced low quality big vendor solutions or badle self developed applications. developed. I know there are plenty of opportunities in all sorts of fields.

I think the cartoon Euan published today sums it up best. A lot of enterprises claim they want innovation and web 2.0. But in reality they just want employees who follow orders. Enterprises need a culture change. But enterprise adoption and complete adoption will change web 2.0 also.

[Lee Bryant]

Actually, Euan, I agree with you that these XXX market will be worth £YYY bn in ZZZ stories are kind of stoopid and they are of course trying to make it sound like a lot. I just think it is important to set the right expectations that companies need to take this area seriously as a competitor (albeit cheaper) to enterprise software. Even rolling out a new waste paper basket costs a lot inside large companies ;-) That's the nature of the beast.

Brendan - yes - I think you are right. Some people just want the semblance of 'social' but not the reality.

[Euan W Semple]

None of which conflicts with my original post!

Just because big orgs are used to spending lots on not very much doesn't mean they shouldn't be vigilant against their own tendency to spend money rather than work hard at the stuff that matters.

[Steve Dale]

I picked this report up as well, together with commentary from Dion Hinchliffe. In terms of the big numbers, I can only associate this with what I hear banded around Uk Gov - like a £1 million quote from IBM to supply a collaborative technology for the Cabinet Office (emphasis here on 'technology' - no mention of 'people'). I'm guessing that the technology itself will eat up about 10% of the budget. The remainder will be spent on their high cost, low value consultants!

[Euan W Semple]

And no one ever got fired for buying IBM .....

[Niall Cook]

Don't worry - it's not actually $4.6bn anyway. The "Enterprise 2.0" market is only predicted to be $1.8bn by 2013 in that report. The remainder is the externally facing marketing stuff.

[Brendan]

Another reason why it's nothing is because the dollar will be playmoney by 2013!

[Alex Manchester]

From a presentation I saw recently it seems even the BBC is embarking on a rather large Microsoft Sharepoint-based intranet. It couldn't have come cheap.

[Euan W Semple]

No indeed!

I had pretty much lost touch with what was happening at the BBC so I asked recently. The wiki is still running on Confluence but the blogs have moved to Sharepoint and there are plans to move the forum there too. To be honest Moveable Type is hard work as an internal blogging tool so I am not surprised at the desire to move but as someone said to me the Sharepoint blogs feel rather "communist".