Mark's profileIn-Cider KnowledgePhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
August 12 Why Web 2.0 Changes The Way IT WorksI’ve been thinking a lot about the latest IT buzzword, “Web 2.0” for a while and have come to the conclusion that for organisations, IT System Architects and System Admins, it equates to one of the biggest changes in the way services are delivered since, well, the Web itself came along.
In the pre-Web-2.0 world that existed up until very recently, the IT services that a person who works or studies at an organisation had access to, was limited to those services which the organisation, the IT department, supplied. This is the perfect world of control, a monopoly. Over the past few years, users have started to absorb extra services, such as Web-based email, especially Hotmail. However, for most, the interface was cumbersome and it came with minimal storage – it was an extra service, and certainly would not replace their service as supplied by their organisation. Web 2.0 changes that, because suddenly, thanks to the leap in competition and technologies like AJAX, these services have become very usable – fast, great interface, loads of storage, and increasingly feature-rich. In short, IT departments suddenly have very real competition to the services they provide.
It might not seem like real competition. After all, what does an IT department lose if their users start to use GMail instead of the company-provided Email or Exchange service? The answer is: relevancy.
A good example of this is Instant Messaging. Personally, I think it is absolutely mad that most organisations haven’t made this an in-company provided service – I believe that it will become soon be a more important communication tool than email. Many organisations are happy for MSN Messenger/Windows Live Messenger and the like. After all, no IT department has enough resources, and this service is a freebie in almost every way. Under the Web 2.0 world, though, a tool like Windows Live Messenger acts as a hub – it links to all the other services that Windows Live provides. For instance, you are talking to a colleague on Messenger, and arrange a meeting. You right click on the user and choose an option: Arrange meeting. Its sorted within seconds. The other scenario is you have to click away from the IM client to your organisation provided calendar in, for example, Exchange. You then have to work out the work username of this colleague and arrange meeting. They then have to contact you about this meeting over Exchange to accept/decline it. Most users will obviously choose the first option, and that makes the calendar service as provided by the IT department, less relevant and causes a lot of hassle within an organisation.
These services have a snowball effect in 2 key areas. These services have a viral effect through an organisation. If a relatively small number of influential users (influential = socially influential, does not mean work hierarchically influential) start to use it, it will spread quickly and often almost totally. At a UK University, for example, you’ll see everyone wants MSN Messenger, and there are little if any calls for AIM or Yahoo Messenger. The other snowball is that the competition between the likes of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, amongst others is fierce and the competition to add services is part of that competition. Soon, a Google login or a Live ID login will give access to a dizzying array of services. Whilst most will be mostly harmless, others, such as online storage (e.g. Google’s much-hyped GDrive) are part of the snowball of services that IT Department’s should worry about .
To add to the example above, if your userbase chat over Windows Live Messenger, they’ll likely want to collaborate work-wise over WLM as well. The last thing that a business wants is users uploading confidential or mission critical documents or data to a GDrive or a Windows Live Disk, so they both have easy access to the file for collaboration purposes.
It’s easy to take from the above that Web 2.0 has no place in the business world. Indeed, many businesses have taken that approach, and many big corporations actively block things like Hotmail. Their blocks will simply fan out to block all these services. Of course, in that scenario, it’s probably correct. However, for many businesses and, especially, education establishments, Web 2.0 offers a great opportunity for users to have a much richer experience and allow much more potential for effective collaboration.
And IT departments need to be able to change to cope with this world. As I said earlier on, Web 2.0 is a competition for relevancy. IT departments need to develop a strategy for this Web 2.0 world. It is clear that there are Web 2.0 services where it is best for the likes of Google or Microsoft to run. However, it is also clear that there are Web 2.0 services which should be developed “in house” – Instant Messaging, Calendar, Internet accessible storage, are a few I singled out above. These services need to be developed quickly too; users should be promised these key services as soon as possible so they don’t feel the need to use external services.
And that final point is probably the key reason Web 2.0 will change the way IT works. As mentioned early on, IT departments have, for too long, been a monopoly, and become monopoly-like: slow, fat, indecisive and with the agility of a weighed down supertanker. Things need to change so service ideas turn to reality in months as opposed to years. It’s a big challenge but, I think, a very exciting one.
Let the battle for relevancy begin! TrackbacksWeblogs that reference this entry
|
|
|
