Geoff - great catch, thanks for pointing out Active Navigation. State of the art and state of adoption continue to lead and lag (as expected). What else rounds out your Findability toolkit? What are the business drivers that you're aiming to and successfully solving?

Dan

Chris - always great to hear I've served as inspiration. Fire it up,
and we can keep the pace, mutually. Dan

Kimberly - Aptara, Sitecore, there are many solutions - the BizTechTalk Briefs I post are simply bookmark reminders or pointers to circle back around later, not a definitive list or endorsement. Appreciate the reminder of Sitecore however, it's been a bit since I last checked in with them.

If that's all you got out of the 15 minutes, then we clearly aren't listening to the same interview. What would constitute fulfilling the premise of the podcast, anonymous one?

Brad - ah, interesting, and not commonly known. The question at that point, however, is whether it actually makes sense to break apart management and storage - what you gain or lose by doing so.

Any common scenarios that you (or anyone else reading?) see as far as SharePoint as management layer, and storage elsewhere?

Have seen Documentum and Open Text in some scenarios - more from a records standpoint. Nothing else that I've personally seen with our clients.

Anyone else? What have you used for this separation of duties? And why?

Another augmented reality sighting at http://www.whatisinnovation.com/videos/3d-basebal... - extending card collecting into the virtual. Very interesting.

Laurence - Thanks for the reply, and whew, remember reading your post a year ago on ECM 2.0 (a year ago? How did that happen?). The long promised vision of ECM seems to finally be getting some traction among "the big boys" of ECM. Just in time for mainstream adoption? We'll see, but in general, it's a very good time to be a buyer of ECM, whether big, small, integrated or in parts.

Some of the positioning of ECM versus E2.0 is a classic marketing move to slay the old (Goliath) by bringing in the new (David). This is how chasms are crossed and mainstream achieve, after all!

There is much the same between the old world (ECM being 1.0 in most minds), and yes, truly "new" concepts in 2.0, such as a trend towards openness, lightweight rather than overbearing "standards" for integration, a heavier move towards collaboration and social features rather than individual or a purely managerial focus, etc..

In the end, I would hope that "it's all important" as Billy says, and with the appropriate structure in place, there's no reason that organizations should have to jump through entirely new hoops when they embrace some new form of media (whether that is the e-mail of yesterday, the wiki of today, or the twitter of tomorrow).

Exactly - let's bump e-mail management up a notch to content management, or information management, or just plain business management.

Think of it all as warehouse inventory. Either it's worth something, or it's not - what is your process for storing, finding, destroying, sharing, etc.? Apply to all content types, and you're golden.

It's the scale of e-mail (or IM, twitter, etc.) that throws people off into thinking it's something new.

Jevon - So many angles to touch on... rich food for discussion!

An attempt to summarize/expand, if I may.

Just as with many "enterprise" concerns, hardly any "enterprise' is entirely on-board the "Enterprise 2.0 train." Aside from phones, payroll, and e-mail, it's exceedingly rare for any enterprise to achieve 100% adoption of any business practice or technology offering. While we shouldn't (collectively) be happy with minimal adoption, we also shouldn't get terribly crazed that "most people don't get this yet" - adoption takes time, and isn't evenly distributed... or insert actual quote from William Gibson :)

People who have an obsession of focusing on a single aspect of Enterprise 2.0 don't "sell" the larger/systemic benefits, as they're focused more on features/functions rather than benefits. Classic solution in search of a problem, and 90% of the pain whether you're buying or selling solutions. You don't buy a wiki to make wikis, you buy them to make meetings more efficient, to enable anyone with knowledge to improve the knowledgebase - not just the few licensed seats of a traditional ECM tool, etc.. The somewhat tired metaphor is that people don't want to buy a drill, then want the end result of a hole of the appropriate size, depth of their need.

From SLATES and FLATNESSES - what I hope people take away from those frameworks is exactly the nature of your closing remark and the paragraph prior to this. It's the combination of many aspects of technology, culture, process, people that actually sow the seeds of adoption and continuing use. Adding only tagging to every system individually in an organization is only going to add a certain amount of value. Layer the feature of tagging ACROSS (as a meta layer) those systems, and suddenly connections pop out that were hidden in the siloed views. It is certainly far more likely that a solution will "be Enterprise 2.0" if as it's own system it is "SLATES-compliant" - but it's only in the context of the larger picture you'll know if that puppy really does walk the walk.

Let's be honest - most of the systems that fall within the purview of Enterprise 2.0 haven't been mature enough to cut across and deliver larger value, as they've been too fragmented or limited to EASILY enable broad emergent capabilities. Now that we're seeing "Enterprise 2.0 suites" - or at least more thoroughly integrated/integrate-able offerings - it's becoming much more likely that the premise of Enterprise 2.0 can actually be delivered and used.

As I frequently have to remind the software companies selling solutions, and the IT shops buying/deploying - customers/business users don't want to use a wiki, and the business doesn't get paid by their customers for creating wikis - they get paid because they are delivering goods/products/services to their customers. The best possible "solution" is one that gets out of the way and lets people create value. Less features, more accomplishments.