DATE: 13th Marrch, 20111
 

 
Amit Naik
N (PGPP26003) || Digvijayy Ade (PG
GP26012)
Priyyajeet Sin
ngh (PGPP26032) || Sarvesh Shetye
S (PPGP26055
5)
Group: 8 Sub – Grou
up: 1 MIS Prroject Report: WEB 2.0 Page 0
 
 

Table of Contents
Define WEB 2.0 ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0 .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Success Factors of Web 2.0 ................................................................................................................... 4

Enterprice 2.0 .......................................................................................................................................... 5 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5

Capabilities ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Technology Paradigms ................................................................................................................... 7

Web 2.0 Case Studies .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CASE 1: Texas Instruments ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CASE 2: Pfizer .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Web 2.0 Applications............................................................................................................................ 10

Prediction Market ................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Crowdsourcing ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 

What managers should do? .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Main Challenges .................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Terminology ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.6

Way Ahead............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 

References ............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 1

 
Definne WEB 2.0 - A new approoach, attittude, way of thinkinng

Web 2.0 is more than t anything else a nnew way foor searchers to actuallyy use the Web
W in a
collaborrative, interractive way. The term 22.0 doesn’t mean that we
w are “out with the olld and in
with thee new”; quite the conttrary! It’s juust a new perspective
p on how wee use the Web,
W and
how thee Web is useed for much h, much moore than justt search and
d static pagees.

Many oof the sites and

a services that are cooming out as a “new” inn Web 2.0 hhave definiteely been
around for longer than these terms havee been used d. Howeverr, these new w terminolo ogies are
taking oold concepts and meldiing them wiith new ideas, creating and collaboorating and d sharing
previouusly standaloone servicess with theorries that wh
hen put togetther just maake sense.

And WWeb 2.0 isn’t just limiteed to what pprogrammerrs and web site developpers can do
o with it,
either. W
Web 2.0 is all
a about yo ou and me aand how useers can create content, m
merge ideass, and in
essencee milk everyy last drop of usefulneess out of thet Web thaat we can gget. The Web is no
longer a spectator sport
s – it’s all about peeople, ideas, and collab
boration.

Some oof the webssites that ex

xploit the 2..0 approach
h in varied ways, and how they do
d it are
listed beelow:

 del.icio.us:: del.icio.us is a sociall bookmarking tool thaat allows yoou to tag annd share
your favoriite Web sitees with felloow del.icio.u
us users all over the woorld.
 Best Digitaal Photo Sh haring Sitess: Lets you share your digital phootos, print th
hem out,
or make theem into a diigital photo album.
 Yahoo Ansswers: Yaho oo Answerss is a cross between multi-topic
m m
message boaards and
your frienddly neighbo orhood/officce/school water
w cooler. It's a grreat place to
t ask a
question annd get an an nswer to prettty much ANY questio on you mighht have.
 Wists: Wissts providees a way tto find inteeresting stu uff on the Web and visually
bookmark it. i You can n also browsse within thhe Wists coommunity an and bookmaark other
peoples' finnds, if you want.
w

Group: 8 Sub – Grou

up: 1 MIS Prroject Report: WEB 2.0 Page 2
 
WEB 1.0 vs WEB 2.0
Web 1.0 existed as the Internet before 1999, experts call it Read-Only era. The average
internet user's role was limited only to reading the information presented to him. The best
examples are millions of static websites which mushroomed during the.com boom. There was
no active communication or information flow from consumer of the information to producer
of the information.

This lack of active interaction of common user with the web lead to the birth of Web 2.0. The
year 1999 marked the beginning of a Read-Write-Publish era with notable contributions from
LiveJournal (Launched in April, 1999) and Blogger (Launched in August, 1999). Now even a
non-technical user can actively interact & contribute to the web using different blog
platforms. This era empowered the common user with a few new concepts viz. Blog, Social-
Media & Video-Streaming. Publishing your content is only a few clicks away! Few
remarkable developments of Web 2.0 are Twitter, YouTube, eZineArticles, Flickr and
Facebook.

Following is a list of direct differences between the two:

Web 1.0 Web 2.0

Web 1.0 was about reading, Web 2.0 is about writing
Web 1.0 was about companies Web 2.0 is about communities
Web 1.0 was about client-server Web 2.0 is about peer to peer
Web 1.0 was about HTML Web 2.0 is about XML
Web 1.0 was about home pages Web 2.0 is about blogs
Web 1.0 was about portals Web 2.0 is about RSS
Web 1.0 was about taxonomy Web 2.0 is about tags
Web 1.0 was about wires Web 2.0 is about wireless
Web 1.0 was about owning Web 2.0 is about sharing
Web 1.0 was about IPOs Web 2.0 is about trade sales
Web 1.0 was about Netscape Web 2.0 is about Google
Web 1.0 was about web forms Web 2.0 is about web applications
Web 1.0 was about screen scraping Web 2.0 is about APIs
Web 1.0 was about dialup Web 2.0 is about broadband
Web 1.0 was about hardware costs Web 2.0 is about bandwidth costs

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 3

 
Success Factors
The application of 2.0 technologies in businesses is not a sure short panacea to business
problems. Across industries and functions, the following emerge as the success factors that
differentiate successful implementations from unsuccessful ones:

 Collaboration - Web 2.0 companies focus on building collaboration, not being

disruptive to existing industry players. They do not seek to attack the core brick and
Mortar infrastructure, they extend and compliment it. The majority of Web 1.0
companies were like young fighter looking to dethrone the long standing champion,
talking trash and ultimately writing checks they could not cash.
 User Generated Content - Web 2.0 companies build on the creation of user content
and interaction. Web 2.0 companies recognize the value of the community is directly
related to the level of participation by community members.
 Network Effects - Web 2.0 companies are leveraging network effects. Participation
leads to growth, growth leads to more participation and growth, and as your
community reaches scale, sub groups establish and many-to-many relations bring a
viral effect to your community.
 Social Networks - In Real Estate the 3 keys to success are said to be location,
location, location. On the web, Social Networks are the key to monetizing and
successfully growing your web 2.0 business. Social network are where all your
various web 2.0 platforms, strategies, and marketing come together to provide
maximum network effect for your product, service or business.
 Dynamic Technologies - Smashups, Blogs, Podcast, and RSS Feeds - Customizing
the user experience has never been easier for businesses or users. The Web 2.0
technologies allow for the combining of existing products and services in a total new
or user friendly way that was not available just a few short years ago. The low cost
and high availability of these tools allow even the smallest of players the opportunity
to compete on a level playing field.
 Monetization models - Web 2.0 companies often have very low costs to market and
they can often be supported with no outside capital. These companies can easily take
advantage of advertising networks, affiliate programs, syndication and licensing, and
transaction based opportunities all with no out of pocket expenses.
 Networksourcing / Crowdsourcing- Is one of the most powerful opportunities on
the web and occurs when you utilize your network to gain ideas for new products,
new services, improvements to your existing products or services, or solicit feedback
on a slogan or ad to run. You can even utilize the network to perform R&D, product
test, offer prize rewards, or solve a pressing business problem. The more participation
and engagement with your community, the more possibilities and opportunities you
will have.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 4

 
Enterprise 2.0 – Structured Chaos
"the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between
companies and their partners or customers“
- Professor Andrew McAfee, Harvard Business School

(coined the term "Enterprise 2.0" in 2006 to describe how the Web 2.0 "technologies
could be used on organizations' intranet and extranets")

Order is a manager's best friend, so knowingly unleashing chaos runs counter to their
instincts. Enterprise 2.0 can be defined as unleashing chaos in the office, but when done right,
this chaos cuts the bonds keeping employees from good communication and boosts overall
productivity.

It is the use of “Web 2.0” applications within an organization to enable or streamline business
processes while enhancing collaboration amongst employees of the organization by
connecting them through the use of social media tools.

Invariably, with such an interlinked, closely knit system, the aim of Enterprise 2.0 is to help
employees, customers and suppliers collaborate, share, and organize information. Companies
deploying Web 2.0 thus have a competitive edge over their competitors in terms of
knowledge management and sharing. The flow of information in such a scenario cuts across
boundaries to share laterally as well as up and down. Information and knowledge radiate in
and out of every direction possible to allow for a vicarious exchange of ideas, views and
business expertise.

It can be compelling to think that such a system is chaotic and can actually damage more than
prosper. However, it is this “chaos” property of the system that is used advantageously. There
may be a certain degree of randomness in which the information is shared with people but
this also helps in making the information reach to a vast number of people, otherwise
impossible under a structured, hierarchical system of functioning. Enterprise 2.0 is giving
structure to this “chaos” of ideas brimming in a business.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 5

 
Enterprise 2.0 – Capabilities
As mentioned, to put, Enterprise 2.0 is brining Web 2.0 functionalities in the office.
Accordingly, many web 2.0 technologies can be translated into an office environment. Some
of these capabilities are described below:

Corporate Wikis: Like their web 2.0 counterparts, corporate wikis’ objective is to foster
collaborative and communicative information sharing on a subject matter. Here, as there’s a
possibility of the wikis being written by people with atleast a basic expertise on the topic, a
good, up to date and very correct wiki can be developed. Individual departments can have
their own individual wikis.

Corporate blogging: Corporate blogging can be used to serve such objectives as leadership
messages, online journals reading, and as knowledge management forums. With such a
strong set of advantages on offer, corporate blogging is gradually becoming an integral part
of the standard set of corporate communication tools.

Micro blogging: Though the web 2.0 counterpart can be seen as a “fun” thing, micro
blogging in organizations can be leveraged to communicate important information quickly to
a group of people. Owing to the quickness of information dispensing, it can also help us to
organize a group quickly. Another use of micro blogging can be to communicate to other
people what exactly they are working on so that duplication of work can be avoided.

Mashup technologies: Online, many core capabilities such as word processors, presentation
tools, etc. can be provided so that hassles of installing these softwares are removed. Providing
such a “bundle” of technologies to employees also helps reduce the workload on IT
departments enabling them to concentrate on high priority projects.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 6

 
Enterprise 2.0 – S.L.A.T.E.S
Ground Rules:

 To offer capabilities which are easy to use.

 To not impose on users any preconceived notions about how work should proceed and
how output should be categorized or structured.

Different technology paradigms of Enterprise 2.0:

Search: For any information platform to be valuable, its users must be able to find what they
are looking for. Intranet page layouts and navigation aids can help with this, but users are
increasingly bypassing these in favour of keyword searches. It might seem that orderly
intranets maintained by a professional staff would be easier to search than the huge, dynamic,
uncoordinated internet, but that is not the case.

Links: Google made a huge leap forward in Internet search quality by taking advantage of
the information contained in links between Web pages (Search Engine Optimization). Links
are an excellent guide to what’s important and provide structure to online content. In this
structure, the best pages are the ones that are most frequently linked to.

Authoring: Internet blogs and Wikipedia have shown that many people have a desire to
author-to write for a broad audience. Blogs let people author individually, and wikis enable
group authorship. Content on blogs is cumulative, while on wikis it’s iterative. When
authoring tools are deployed and used within a company, the intranet platform shifts from
being the creation of a few to being the constantly updated, interlinked work of many.

Tags: Some sites on the web aggregate large amounts of content, then outsource the work of
categorization to their users by letting them attach tags-simple, one word descriptions. The
categorization system that emerges from tagging is called a folksonomy. Folksonomies are
generally multi-level and can be redundant, but they reflect the information structures and
relationships that people actually use. Tags also provide a way to keep track of the platforms
visited by knowledge workers. Employees could use it to keep track of useful intranet and
internet pages they’ve consulted, and to assign tags to these pages as reminders content. As a
result, patters and processes in knowledge work would become more visible.

Extensions: Moderately smart computers take tagging one step further by automating some
of the work of categorization and pattern matching. They use algorithms to say to users, “if
you liked that, then by extension you will like this.” Amazon’s recommendations were an
early example of this.

Signals: Even with powerful tools to search and categorize platform content, a user can
easily feel overwhelmed. New content is added so often that it can become a full time job just
to check for updates on all sites of interest. The final element of SLATES infrastructure in
technology is to signal users when new content of interest appears. Signals can come as email
alerts, RSS feeds, etc.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 7

 
WEB 2.0 – CASE STUDIES
Case 1:
Texas Instruments: Use of Web 2.0 technologies:

Back in 2004, Texas Instruments (TI) noticed a problem in its customer service department, one that's
typical in companies serving technical customer bases. Some of TI's main customers (engineers) buy
and use some of the company's most technical products, such as digital signal processors. TI needed a
better way to quickly provide answers to customer questions, without the customer sitting on hold
with a call center, waiting for a representative who might not even have the technical expertise to
answer the inquiry.

Around the same time, tech industry observers were noting that Web 2.0 technologies could be
utilized to build customer communities to transparently document common problems. As community-
based applications emerged, TI decided to build "E2E," which stands for engineers to engineers.
Launched in 2008, E2E is an externally-facing community where TI's staff interacts with engineering
customers (and where the engineers could interact with each other).

As a result, TI has reworked a major part of its customer service arm into a transparent portal where
customers and TI employees can share best practices that help solve common technical challenges. "It
allows us to have a place to publicly share knowledge," says Devashish Saxena, Texas Instruments'
(TI) director of global Internet marketing.

The engineers can trade messages with TI's staff for many technical issues. Once a TI staffer answers
the question, the thread of comments appear publicly on the E2E site. Moreover, the results come up
on Google. So if engineers type the name of a product into Google (and many such searches use
specific model numbers), E2E forums will return in the search results page.

"If you think about engineers, when they ask a question in a forum setting, they use the same
keywords," Saxena says. "Lots of the site traffic comes from organic search."
According to Saxena, in a short time, E2E has changed the nature of requests the customer support
department receives, since engineers were able to access help for deeply technical issues from the
community. Now, if they have to call customer service, it's for a more specific question (to their case)
that isn't as broadly applicable to the whole community.

TI built the platform on technology from Telligent, a company that makes Web 2.0 technologies for
the enterprise (often called Enterprise 2.0 apps). The Telligent platform allows customers to interact
with the company hosting the forum, and each other, to solve problems.

According to Oliver Young, a senior Forrester analyst, apps like Telligent's have become popular for
the type of externally-facing forum TI has built. SharePoint, Microsoft's mammoth set of
collaboration applications, can be used for external communities, but the licensing is more complex,
so companies have more often relied on it for internal purposes.

Reference: G. Lynch, CIO, “Texas Instrument's Web 2.0 Success Story: Better Customer Service”, July, 2009.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 8

 
WEB 2.0 – CAASE STUDIIES
Case 2:
Pfizer: HHealthcare Web
W 2.0 Innoovator Case Study

Pfizer is the worldd's largest pharmaceutic

p cal companyy by sales, having in its stable numerousn
bestselliing drugs, froom Lipitor, Lyrica
L and DDiflucan Zith
hromax and Viagra.
V It aalso has the industry's
i
largest R
R&D budget, a global wo orkforce and a tremendou us need for itts people to ccollaborate
seamlesssly across boundaries.
b All
A pharmacceutical com mpanies are struggling tto invent neew drugs
because much of thee "low hang ging fruit" haas been harv
vested, and thheir R&D sttaffs need to o try new
things too discover annd bring new
w drugs to maarket.

In this ccase, Pfizer'ss experience suggests thee power of applying

a Weeb 2.0 tools internally, a practice
termed ""enterprise 2.0."
2 Summarry of Web 22.0 Activitiess It All Begaan with a Bloog, Pfizer's enterprise
e
2.0 journney began asa a grassroots effort. Thhe company''s most visib ble championn, Simon Rev vell, was
frustrateed by the ineefficiency of collaborationn, so he con nnected with several otheer people who felt the
same annd decided to do someth hing about itt. They lau unched a bloog, and theyy made it op pen to all
employeees. It turns out that theey hit an infflection poin nt. Several months later er, they orgaanized an
internal Web 2.0 connference, and d they sharedd it live via Web
W 2.0. They received 3300,000 hits on the
conferennce website. They creaated blogs annd podcasts to share event happeninngs worldwiide.Since
then, theey have creaated an onlinne communitty in which employees can c help eachh other to leearn Web
2.0 toolss and to appply them to business
b proccesses. Seveeral months after that, R Revell was thhen asked
by IT mmanagement to t present thee case. He ssays, "We're getting so many
m doors oopened to us now and
so manyy opportunitties to try ou ut this stuff,
f," he said. "So
" many peeople are keeen to look at it and
examinee it."

This waas followed on with a Wiki Meanw while, Chriss Bouton, a researcher at Pfizer's Research
R
Technollogy Center, introduced a wiki to hellp connect th he dots. Man ny researcheers resemble software
builders; they like to work in tiight groups w without exteensive interacction, but Boouton is cut out of a
differentt cloth. Havving an apprreciation to cconnect peop ple and ideas, he tried too help his co
olleagues
create annd share infoormation. "B Basically whhat I did," hee says, "was download M MediaWiki, thet open-
source ssoftware thatt runs Wikip pedia, onto a computer under
u my dessk and presss the on buttton." The
rest is hhistory. Pfizeerpedia, as th
he wiki becaame affection nately named, grew viraally, amassin ng 13,000
individuual users woorldwide witthin a year of launch. Pfizer has discovered that wikis are very
powerfuul collaboratiion tools beccause they ennable colleagues to postt content andd correct eacch other's
content.

Reference: Christopheer S. Rollyson and Associattes, “Healthca

are Web 2.0 In
nnovators: Pfifizer Case Stud
dy”, May,
2008.

Group: 8 Sub – Grou

up: 1 MIS Prroject Report: WEB 2.0 Page 9
 
WEB 2.0 – Applications

The term web 2.0 as discussed, is associated with web applications that facilitate information
sharing, interoperability, user-centred design, and collaboration on the world wide web. A
web 2.0 site allows users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media
dialogue as creators (prosumers) of user generated content in a virtual community, in contrast
to websites where consumers are limited only to the passive viewing of content of the content
that was created for them. Web 2.0 in simple terms, delinks, a form from its content and
hence, users can fill in the content without worrying about the form that holds this content.

Some of the most commonly used Web 2.0 Applications used are described below:

Blogs:

Blogs first emerged almost a decade ago as a medium for posting online diaries. Over time,
blogging has become a very popular phenomenon. Today, blogging is way in which
individuals can share their opinions, views, knowledge with anyone in the world. It helps
people to author and share. Such blogs remain discoverable through search engines and
hence, their ease of availability is also tremendous. The most popular blogs offer cutting edge
news and commentary, with postings running the gamut from professional publications to
personal diaries. Top blogs today have begun to attract well known journalists away from
print media. However despite its advantages, care must be taken while blogging as
disgruntled blogging directed at a particular sect can lead to controversial statements. It can
also cause people to spam with comments and ridicule you in public domain. Maintaining a
clean, respectful image while blogging must be on high priority.

Wikis:

A key is a website anyone can edit directly within a web browser, provided the site grants the
user edit access. The largest and the most popular wiki is Wikipedia, but there are hundreds
of publicly accessible wikis that anyone can participate in. Each attempts to chronicle a world
of knowledge within a particular domain. Wikis can be powerful tools for many to many
content collaboration and can be ideal for creating resources that benefit from the input of
many such encyclopaedia entries, meeting agendas, project status documents. The greater the
number of wiki users, the more likely the information contained in the wiki will be accurate
and grow in value (“wisdom of the crowds”). Such wikis can be both public and private. The
openness of wikis also act as a mechanism for promoting organizational transparency and
accountability.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 10

 
Social Networks:

Perhaps the most “in” thing of the recent in Web 2.0 are social networks. Social networks can
be said to be a platform provided to share user generated content with other user generated
content across the world. Myspace, LinkedIn, Facebook and the now very much
dysfunctional orkut are only a few but prime examples of a phenomenon that is taking over
world over by storm.

Each of these social networks offer a unique proposition of sharing content with other users.
Myspace for example, was started by musicians as a tool to help users discover new music
and engage with bands. Today, it has evolved to add other functionalities as well. LinkedIn is
a social network with a more “professional” look and offers you an opportunity to connect
and interact with employees from various organizations. Facebook is a kind of a mash up that
literally lets you live your life in a virtual domain. The concept of the facebook “wall” lets
you pour out the graffiti of your mind’s thoughts quickly, and as fast, share it with everyone.
It also allows you to make recommendations, share pictures, videos, play games, etc. And all
of this is done in a very user friendly manner. Not even a single line of code is needed to be
understood to use facebook. Another very unique thing about facebook is that it is more
oriented towards reinforcing existing social ties between people who already know each
other. This leads to different usage patterns.

Microblogging:

This is similar to blogging but here, you are not required to write sentences after sentences.
Rather, one simple sentence that communicates quickly to the whole world what’s on your
mind, or what you are upto. Twitter is the most widely known microblogging website.
Twitter’s default supports asymmetric communication, where someone can follow updates
without first getting their approval. This makes twitter a good choice for anyone cultivating
the following-authors, celebrities, organizations, etc. It can also be leveraged in times of
disasters, terrors and other emergency events. Despite its rapid growth and impact, questions
still remain regarding its long term durability and sustainability to keep the interest up for
users.

Videosharing websites:

There are numerous websites across the entire internet now which help you share user
generated videos along with professional ones. As a result, communicating with the entire
world in a near physical form has become a reality. You can upload your videos and share
them with everyone. Likewise, you can also share a video that you like with others. Youtube
is the most popular videosharing website today.

Podcasting: Podcasts are digital audio files provided as a series of programs. Podcasts range
from a sort of media blog, archives of traditional radio and television programs, and regular
offerings of original online content.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 11

 
Prediction Market
“A large & diverse group can bring better insight to a problem than the professional ones.”
Prediction market uses this logic to poll and opinions a diverse crowd to form a forecast of an
eventual outcome. It gives accurate result when a diversified and variously skilled and
experienced are tapped.

Examples
IOWA Electronic markets (IEM):

The IEM is an on-line prediction market where contract payoffs are based on real-world
events such as political outcomes, companies' earnings per share (EPS), and stock price
returns. These markets are small-scale, real-money futures markets where contract payoffs
depend on economic and political events such as elections. A person can place a bet from $5
upto $500 of bet. You can also use IEM without placing any monetary bets. It is primarily
used for academic and research purposes. IEM’s predictions about the political elections have
been highly accurate.

Hollywood Stock Exchange:

HSE is an online, virtual game established in 1996 in which players buy and sell shares of
predictions on movies, actors, directors, and other film related opinions such as whether a
particular film will gross over 300 million worldwide or not. Similar predictions can be done
on movie award nominations.

Google Prediction markets (GPM):

GPM is an in house prediction/speculative market of google employees wherein they trade on

various verticals like project completion, political results, sports related outcomes, movies,
etc. Participants play with Goobles money and the most consistent performers are rewarded.

Hewlett Packard Sales Forecasting:

HP used prediction market methods to forecast its sales volumes and received considerable
success in the process. It is now thinking selling it to others as a commercially viable product,
BRAIN (Behaviourally Robust Aggregation of Information Networks).

References:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/ssrc/competitive/brain/?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN
http://tippie.uiowa.edu/iem/about/index.html

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 12

 
Crowdsourcing
Crowdsourcing is the act of outsourcing tasks, traditionally performed by an employee or
contractor, to an undefined, large group of people or community (a "crowd"), through an
open call.

Jeff Howe was first of the few authors to employ the term. He established that the concept of
crowdsourcing depends essentially on the fact that because it is an open call to an undefined
group of people, it gathers those who are most fit to perform tasks, solve complex problems
and contribute with the most relevant and fresh ideas.

For example, the public may be invited to develop a new technology, carry out a design task,
refine or carry out the steps of an algorithm, or help capture, systematize or analyze large
amounts of data.

Perceived benefits of crowdsourcing include the following:

 Problems can be explored at comparatively little cost, and often very quickly.
 Payment is by results or even omitted
 The organization can tap a wider range of talent than might be present in its own
organization.
 By listening to the crowd, organizations gain first-hand insight on their customers'
desires.
 The community may feel a brand-building kinship with the crowdsourcing
organization, which is the result of an earned sense of ownership through contribution
and collaboration.

One of the most famous examples of crowdsourcing is Wikipedia, where people upload. Edit
and manage the content online.

One of the biggest task-related crowdsourcing started in recent times is the “Localization
Project” started by Facebook in 2008. In this the crowd was roped in to translate Facebook
pages into the local languages.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 13

 
What managers should do ?
It is often thought that new technological mediums will pick up on its own. Just like E-mails
and instant messaging picked up in most of the companies, without any explicit support from
the managers, even the new age enterprise 2.0 tools will pick up purely on the basis of its
technological competency.

But it is farther from the truth. Every new application needs to be carefully introduced and
nurtured into the organisation and into its cultural fabric.

It is the responsibility of the managers to familiarise the people with the different enterprise
solutions being implemented in the organisation and get people on-board with it.

The most important task with the managers is to create a receptive culture in the organisation.
Wikis are open source and don’t really follow any rigid hierarchy. Therefore it is necessary
that the organisation adopting Wikis should have a 360 degree feedback and performance
review culture. Otherwise in organisations with rigid structure and hierarchy, either the Wikis
won’t work or the format will create shock for the employees.

The managers cannot rollout new tools without creating a proper structure and framework for
it. Policies regarding the usage should be put up publicly, so that there is no
miscommunication. This being a new medium, the managers need to spell out for the
employees what is acceptable and what is not. It could be as simple as the anti-harassment
policy or what is considered secret and sensitive company information.

Last but not the least, the managers themselves should start pioneering the usage of the new
tools. Until the top management does not patronize the changes, the subordinates will not use
the tools to its fullest capacity. The managers should be the first ones to use this, as when
they do it, then only will other people in the organisation be comfortable with the Enterprise
2.0 tools.

The concept of information anarchy states just that. We have to give people a starting point
that they can react to and modify; we just can’t give them a blank workspace and say, “Use
this now.”

Thus the managers have a very important role in rolling out of Enterprise 2.0 tools in any
organisation.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 14

 
Main Challenges
After the managers have done everything right to roll out Enterprise 2.0 solutions in the
company, there are still two major challenges left.

Firstly, it is seen statistically that majority of internet user are just user and not contributors.
That means the internet users are not really taggers, bloggers or Wiki writers. They don’t
really help build the platform, they just use it. By the same analogy, even the users inside the
organisation could be assumed to be of the same nature. The busy knowledge workers will
use the platform inside the company intranet more than contributing to it. This will eventually
lead to failure of the enterprise tools as contribution from the users is the main source of
Enterprise 2.0 tools.

Secondly, even if the users use the tools perfectly according to its intended usage, there’s still
a matter of anonymity and freedom. Internet is not owned by anyone and therefore not really
being controlled by anyone. But the company intranet is a different ball-game altogether. If a
certain employees writes any negative comment regarding the management or some powerful
people in the company, the anonymity of this person and his freedom to express his views
cannot be guaranteed. The leadership might be tempted to suppress the discontent in the
organisation.

For this the leadership should take care to not come down heavily and allow a certain level of
freedom to people to question and criticize the current methods, if they want to truly harness
the collective intellect of their organisation.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 15

 
Terminology
Aggregation: Gathering information from multiple web sites, typically via RSS. Aggregation
lets web sites remix the information from multiple web sites, for example by republishing all
the news related to a particular keyword.

Blog: Originally short for "weblog", a blog is just a web page that contains entries in reverse
chronological order, with the most recent entry on top. But blogging has taken off because
the explosion in blogging software and services -- like Blogger, TypePad and WordPress --
has turned blogging into one of the easiest ways for people to maintain a constantly updated
web presence. In addition to the classic text blog, we now have photo blogs (consisting of
uploaded photos), audio blogs (a.k.a. "podcasts") and video blogs (which consist of regularly
uploaded video files).

Blogroll: A list of recommended sites that appears in the sidebar of a blog. These sites are
typically sites that are either on similar topics, sites that the blogger reads regularly, or sites
that belong to the blogger's friends or colleagues. The term "blogroll" also evokes the concept
of political logrolling (when legislators promise to vote for one another's pet bills) -- which is
not unlike bloggers' habit of reciprocating links by posting links to blogs that link back to
their own blogs.

Mashup: A web service or software tool that combines two or more tools to create a whole
new service. A leading example is ChicagoCrime, which merges Google Maps with the
Chicago police department's crime tracking web site to offer a map of crime in different parts
of Chicago.

Moblogging: Short for mobile blogging, moblogging refers to posting blog updates from a
cell phone, camera phone or pda (personal digital assistant). Mobloggers may update their
web sites more frequently than other bloggers, because they don't have to be at their
computers in order to post.

Newsreader: A newsreader gathers the news from multiple blogs or news sites via RSS (see
below), allowing readers to access all their news from a single web site or program. Online
newsreaders (like Bloglines, Pluck, or Newsgator) are web sites that let you read RSS feeds
from within your web browser. Desktop newsreaders download the news to your computer,
and let you read your news inside a dedicated software program.

Podcast: An audio blog, typically updated weekly or daily. You don't have to have an ipod to
listen to a podcast; although you can download podcasts to an ipod, you can also listen to
podcasts on a desktop computer, or many other mp3 players.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 16

 
RSS: A format for storing online information in a way that makes that information readable
by lots of different kinds of software. Many blogs and web sites feature RSS feeds: a
constantly updated version of the site's latest content, in a form that can be read by a
newsreader or aggregator.

Social bookmarking: The collaborative equivalent of storing favorites or bookmarks within

a web browser, social bookmarking services (like del.icio.us or Furl) let people store their
favourite web sites online. Social bookmarking services also let people share their favourite
web sites with other people, making them a great way to discover new sites or colleagues
who share your interests.

Social networking: Social networking sites help people discover new friends or colleagues
by illuminating shared interests, related skills, or a common geographic location. Leading
examples include Friendster, LinkedIn, and 43people.

Tags: Keywords that describe the content of a web site, bookmark, photo or blog post. You
can assign multiple tags to the same online resource, and different people can assign different
tags to the same resource. Tag-enabled web services include social bookmarking sites (like
del.icio.us), photo sharing sites (like Flickr) and blog tracking sites (like Technorati). Tags
provide a useful way of organizing, retrieving and discovering information.

Wiki: A collaboratively edited web page. The best known example is wikipedia, an
encyclopedia that anyone in the world can help to write or update. Wikis are frequently used
to allow people to write a document together, or to share reference material that lets
colleagues or even members of the public contribute content.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 17

 
Wayy Ahead

Web 2.00 is still beiing implemeented acrosss organizatiions. There are very few
w companiees
which ccan claim a full implemmentation if the tools.

But oveer the time they

t will become integrral tools in day to day operations
o aand commoonplace
to manyy people chaanging the way
w they coommunicatee not only withw friends and familiees, but
with orgganizations and busineesses. Thesee tools will also
a facilitate a changee in people and
a how
they infform themseelves and gaather news.

As withh any new teechnology, there will bbe some vuln nerability thhat shall ariise as they are
a
adoptedd and threats will emergge as they aare adapted to operation ns. We havee a responsiibility to
find thee balance beetween the value
v and thhe vulnerabiilities and to
o train for thhe threats we
w
perceive.

Web 2.00 is the nexxt big thing. Its implem

mentation by organizatio
ons will give
ve them a strrategic
and com
mpetitive addvantage.

It will cchange the wayw organizzation functtion and run

n. Right noww, even thouugh the com mpanies
are payiing good am mounts for good
g knowlledge workeer, all the in
ntellectual caapital is nott being
harnesssed in an efffective way.. Using webb 2.0 tools the organizaation will bee able to efffectively
utilize iits intellectuual capital.

But it iss still in a naascent stagee and needss to be nurtu

ured. But wh
hen Web 2.00 is finally up and
runningg, the organiization will derive conssiderable ad dvantage fro
om it.

Group: 8 Sub – Grou

up: 1 MIS Prroject Report: WEB 2.0 Page 18
 
References
Arrington, Michael, “Comcast, Twitter, and the Chicken – Trust me I have a Point”,
TechCrunch, April 6, 2008.

Ayers, Ian, “Mining Unconscious Wisdom”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86, No. 3, March
2008, pp. 21-22.

Baker, Stephen and Green, Heather, “Beyond Blogs: What Every Business Needs to Know”,
BusinessWeek, June 2, 2008.

Brandel, Mary, “Crowdsourcing: Are You Ready to Ask the World for Answers?”,
Computerworld, March 3, 2008.

Bulkley, W., “Playing Well with Others”, The Wall Street Journal, June 18, 2007.

http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/ssrc/competitive/brain/?jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN

http://tippie.uiowa.edu/iem/about/index.html

Christopher S. Rollyson and Associates, “Healthcare Web 2.0 Innovators: Pfizer Case
Study”, May, 2008.

G. Lynch, CIO, “Texas Instrument's Web 2.0 Success Story: Better Customer Service”, July,
2009.

Group: 8 Sub – Group: 1 MIS Project Report: WEB 2.0 Page 19