I’ve never liked the 2.0 label: it’s overly simplistic and trivializes the complex and rapid evolution of the World Wide Web. It’s also wrong (Tim O’Reilly is widely credited for coining the “Web 2.0” phrase but 2.0 was applied to the business of the web long before (anyone remember the great Internet magazine Business 2.0?).
However, public discourse and nomenclature are important and you cannot ignore accepted and ‘most common’ norms. The Web 2.0 label soon jumped the firewall and Intranet 2.0 is used to describe social media on the corporate intranet. I didn’t like the intranet 2.0 label at first, but I succumbed to the public discourse and am likely most guilty of using it. Like it’s Web 2.0 cousin, intranet 2.0 is overly simplistic if not an inappropriate or wrongful characterization.
But why fight the mob? The mob rules (it’s not always best or smartest, but it’s easy to follow). How many definitions have we stupidly applied to a single word like Java or multiple spellings for the same pronunciation (their, there, they’re)?
Intranet 2.0
For the record, intranet 2.0 (note the consistent use of a non-capitalized “intranet”) merely describes, albeit vaguely, an intranet that features 2.0 or social media tools. Intranet 2.0 applications can include all of the fine social media we’ve come to love and overuse:
Blogs
Wikis
Podcasts
Social bookmarking
Social Networking
Photo and video sharing
Discussion forums
Instant messaging
User commenting
User ratings
User tagging
Etc.
Some of these tools have in fact been around since the early 1990s – long before the 2.0 label was proclaimed and over-proscribed.
Social intranet
I defined the social intranet last week with the release of The Social Intranet white paper:
An intranet that features multiple social media tools for most or all employees to use as collaboration vehicles for sharing knowledge with other employees. A social intranet may feature blogs, wikis, discussion forums, social networking, or a combination of these or any other Web 2.0 (intranet 2.0) tool with at least some or limited exposure (optional) from the main intranet or portal home page.
However, a few employee or executive blogs do not make a social intranet. A social intranet requires wide participation, or at minimum, opportunity for participation, by most or all employees that have intranet access. Social intranets require social media: blogs, wikis, and user comments, to name a few. More advanced social intranets may incorporate multimedia, user-tagging, and social networking that are integrated into multiple channels including user profiles (such as the feature set produced by Microsoft SharePoint 2010 or Lotus Connections).
A social intranet however does not have or include:
All social media tools (two or three will suffice);
The participation of all employees (but be open to most employees); and
A technology platform that is strictly a social media platform (e.g. blog or wiki platform).Social intranet basics:
Multiple social media tools
Intranet 2.0 vs social intranet
In short, intranet 2.0 is very similar to a social intranet, but you can have 2.0 tools and not have a social intranet. Intranet 2.0 is simply a vague label (just as vague as the Web 2.0) applied to the collection of social media tools being used on the corporate intranet.
READ MORE: The Social Intranet white paper
PARTICIPATE: Join the Social Intranet user community / social networking site (www.Communexions.com)
Follow me on Twitter
Join the discussion on Communexions.com
Good distinction between the two. It has become increasingly difficult to to decipher between web 2.0 technologies and what constitutes a social intranet. The article helps in making reader understand the difference between the two.
Toby I see your point and I actually agree that Intranet 2.0 and Social Intranet don't have to mean or be the same thing.
However why think of 'intranet 2.0' as merely 'web 2.0' tools applied internally. Why not think of intranet 2.0 as an element of 'Enterprise 2.0' ? I suggest this because E2.0 has two well known and understood frameworks against which to assess tools:
1. Prof. Andrew McAfee's original SLATES framework
2. Dion Hinchcliffe's later FLATNESSES framework
(for a quick explanation of both see: http://wiki.glostra.fi/index.php?title=Enterprise_2.0#SLATES
However, when it comes down to it I think that biggest distinction is that Intranet 2.0 is about tools, I don't think it has to be a vague label as you suggest, if we agree its all about software.
The Social Intranet on the other hand could also be described as a vague label, but I see it as describing a strategy and it's execution. As you note, a couple of executive blogs and a wiki do not constitute a social intranet !
So can you build a Social Intranet from Intranet 2.0 tools – sure, if you have the strategy and your organizational culture is open to it. Can you build a Social Intranet without Intranet 2.0 tools – yes, probably, but the above caveats still apply.
As practitioners we need consistent application of labels, so good'on yer for trying some definitions 🙂
No you've missed the point entirely: these terms are vague at best. Especially Enterprise 2.0 which is the most vague of them all in use (though likely not intended to be so misused by Mcafee) and used as a catch-all term for everything under the sun — and is mostly focused on EXTERNAL use of social media (although Mcafee probably didn't intend this, even his most recent presentation that I caught was MOSTLY externally focused). Just look at the Boston E2.0 conference, the opening track on E2.0 strategy… the overview leads with “web 2.0 tools” and the first users mention “sales” and “marketing”… and Mcafee is name is on this conference, and is on the Advisory Board!!! No, in use and practice, Enterprise 2.0 is extraordinarily vague and far too externally focused. There's a difference between intent and practice….
I'm talking internal, to be specific, the intranet. This is my entire point, these terms are vague, but they're most commonly used, therefore I'm not going to fight the tide.
I like the SLATES framework but that's a different column, I'm discussing in this column the name or label “2.0”.
Hinchcliffe… where to begin. He's just a plagiarist (he's used my stuff with no reference or attribute… and I don't just mean a phrase or sentence, I mean paragraphs).
….not to forget Enterprise Microblogging as an integral part.
So is something like Jive SBS a social networking and group platform Intranet 2.0. Or is the same sort of tool set against an Intranet more suited to be called Intranet 2.0 eg. Thoughtfarmer.
Here's my post http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/08/20/whats-the-difference-between-intranet-20-and-a-social-network-with-groups/
Here are my comments
http://www.giatalks.com/2010/05/how-to-position-social-business-software-with-other-enterprise-apps/
http://www.giatalks.com/2010/05/why-sbs-systems-and-intranets-arent-merging-yet/
There is a middle space here of the Intranet streaming activity that happens in a social platform like Jive SBS.
But if the Intranet could have Jive SBS features like Thoughtfarmer, wouldn't this cut to the chase.
I am curious to find out what blog system you happen to be working with? IРІР‚в„ўm having some minor security problems with my latest weblog and IРІР‚в„ўd like to find something a lot more safe. Do you’ve any recommendations?
Actually, I use WordPress… and have used other platforms. WordPress is the best, by far, and I highly recommend it 🙂