Social networking could turn out to be a costly "white elephant" for businesses that rush to invest in the technology.
Many companies are thinking about whether they can take advantage of social-networking technology but analysts at Gartner are warning corporates against getting caught up in all the Web 2.0 hype.
Businesses are advised to consider certain issues before investing in or developing internal social-networking tools. These include protecting personal intellectual property, and people's preference for using existing non-professional external networks such as Bebo, Facebook and MySpace.
With Facebook saying it will license its developer platform to other organisations, it could soon be even easier for companies to develop their own social networks.
But the Gartner report says the hype around social networking doesn't necessarily mean it's a mature enough technology to make it a critical business requirement.
There is also little evidence that social networking will be as beneficial for businesses as other web-based communications technology, such as instant messaging and VoIP.
Ultimately, Gartner suggests, the value of social-networking technology comes from content rather than the product itself.
The analyst recommends IT departments should think very carefully before committing to expensive "social-networking white elephants".
Also bringing business and social networking together, business network LinkedIn this month said it will allow third parties to develop applications for its site and allow them to take LinkedIn content to other sites.
Talkback
The renowned Gartner Group's latest Hype Cycle report places "Web 2.0" in a "Trough of Disillusionment":
http://tinyurl.com/6ycvs8
But for a few good chuckles, I suggest you Google the following and browse the first 20-30 listings:
failures Gartner Group
warnings Gartner Group
Gartner Group expects
Gartner Group predicts
As for "Web 2.0?, like so many tech articles posted since Tim O'Reilly (or was it Dale Dougherty?) first
coined the term in 2004 (or was it 2005?), this one references "Web 2.0" as if it were something
tangible--or at least a concept with clear, concise definition. It is not. In 2006, Web founder Sir
Tim Berners-Lee sagely observed that "nobody knows what it means":
http://tinyurl.com/y6ewzy
In 2007, Michael Wesch put together this video that supposedly "explains what Web 2.0 really is about":
http://tinyurl.com/6pdz2q
It is a cool video. But the message is all about XML and how it can be used to separate form and
content. There was no mention of CSS and XHTML, but no matter. I was writing XML parsers in the '90s,
and XHTML/CSS web design pre-dates "Web 2.0" as well.
And now in 2008, the most honest thing we can say is that "Web 2.0" means whatever the techno-marketeer
(ab)using it wants it to mean. Otherwise, why would intelligent people like Isaac O'Bannon still be
writing articles asking "What is Web 2.0?":
http://tinyurl.com/5solok
And, why would McKinsey's just-released best-of-breed report entitled "Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise"
...
http://tinyurl.com/6sxls7
... include no attempt at defining the term other than to list the "Web 2.0 Tools" that comprise or
enable it? And even there, the chief ingredient is identified only as "Web Services", adding more
mystery to the mix as one ethereal term is offered up to explain another.
As originated in an Onstartups.com website design posting...
http://tinyurl.com/576sgs
... "Web 2.0" is like pornography: Nobody has defined it; you just have to know it when you see it.
Bruce Arnold, Web Design Miami Florida
http://www.PervasivePersuasion.com