Guy Kawasaki, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist (and widely known for marketing the Macintosh computer in 1984), responded to me last year when I asked him to explain the difference between Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0:
Guy may as well compare Web 2.0 and Government 2.0–or Enterprise 2.0 and Government 2.0. Or any version with any other version.
To Steve Radick’s credit, I agree there is a difference between implementing social media for business and for government, but the forms of social media used in both so-called Enterprise 2.0 and Government 2.0 communities are the same. We’re still talking about Facebook pages for organizations and agencies. We’re still talking about networking on LinkedIn and collaborating on Twitter. Even the GovLoop community has members of the business community–and there are groups therein that meld both sectors.
If we agree there is a paradigm shift occurring in business and government, why create versions? Why confuse the populace? If I walk down to the local playground and randomly ask parents how they’d define Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, and Government 2.0, what would they say? I can guess.
What if I asked the parents to differentiate Business to Business, Business to Consumer, Government to Government, and Government to Citizen? I’ll hazard another guess.
John Geraci at O’Reilly Radar inspired this blog post. He writes about four processes that ensure government transparency–Government to Citizen, Citizen to Government, Government to Government, and Citizen to Citizen.
I wonder if he’s sauteeing bull shiitake.
Jared Spool wrote about design similarities between business and consumer communities in August 2006:
One of the great myths of the web is there is a difference between business-to-consumer (B2C) sites and business-to-business (B2B) sites. But, having looked into this for the last ten years, we can conclusively say you won’t find any difference in how people behave on one site or the other.
This is because, whether interacting with B2C or B2B, it’s still an individual person doing the interacting. And people are people. They don’t change their behaviors when they are doing something work-related than when they are doing something personal.
If John agrees that government and business operate similarly online (after all, Government 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 are but pretty buzzwords with the same definitions of Web 2.0), look at Francois Gossieaux’ perspective from May 2009 why B2B and B2C remain communities about people:
When it comes to communities – especially successful ones – there is no difference between the two. The main interactions in communities do not happen between businesses and other businesses, or between businesses and consumers – they happen between humans and other humans. And that is no different in B2B than in B2C environments.
Francois could have written about G2G and G2C.
With the four pillars of a civic system “properly developed and engaged,” John writes government leaders would see “increases in efficiency, greater innovation and rate of change, better adaptability, and greater resilience.”
I argue agencies and citizens are already ensuring government transparency and will continue to create–and demand–government change. When Jared, Francois, and Guy agree differentiating the terminology is a crock, why is O’Reilly Radar suggesting we need more?
John’s on the money by describing how civic society will flourish–but it will flourish regardless how we define it, so why not keep things simple? Let’s stop creating new definitions and defining new processes. Let’s stop the spin.
Thank you for returning to my blog! If you enjoyed reading the above, please consider following future tips and strategies by RSS reader, email delivery, or Kindle subscription. You may also reach me on Twitter @ariherzog.
Related posts:
- Starting My Week with Government and Enterprise
- E-Government: Out With the Old or In With the New?
- Thinking About Government Communications
Comments:
Ari Herzog is an online media strategist and Newburyport City Councilor-Elect.
978-558-0008
ConvoTrack
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Ari,
You make some good points. I was drawn to O’Reilly Radar’s suggestion not because it made the conversation more complex, but because it seemed to be trying to not leave anyone out. That said, if we do go down that path, likely we’ll be trying to define the relationship of all kinds of entities to other entities. NGO – Gov, Church – Gov, Gov – Foreign Gov, Union – Gov…It could get messy.
On the other hand, relationships are messy. We have to try to navigate through life by deciding what role we are playing as we interact with other people and entities. We don’t do it consciously, we just do it.
Perhaps the difficult part is winnowing out what information about the interactions must be captured for posterity’s sake or for legal reasons. Civil society doesn’t flourish without some basis of common understanding. So, we have to categorize things in order to be able to store, find and reuse them. But, then I have that records/historical focus, so naturally, I’m going to make that kind of connection.
Ultimately, whether you buy a roll of toilet paper as an individual or a carton of toilet paper as an institution, you are conducting the same transaction with the same seller; the difference is the amount of money given for toilet paper received. Why should it matter if the transaction is G2C or G2G?
Is it the same transaction? Do I get a discount when I’m buying in bulk? What if my intention is to resell the toilet paper and I have a tax exemption?
Personally, I think it’s all hype. Slap some new moniker on it and spin it out there for the bit heads and social whores to say “What? Am I missing out on some new slang?” and begin using it themselves.
I’m all for keeping things simple, and honestly, versioning is great for software and web sites that are expected to grow and change over time, but it isn’t necessary for things like Government or “the web”, in fact it only serves to increase the confusion, like you said.
It’s catchy and hip these days to slap a 2.0 on the end of anything, and that’s the problem. Companies, governments and news organizations are trying to be hip and cool, when there is no chance of them ever being hip or cool.
New from Wayne: Learning Web Development Through Blogging
You nailed it with keeping things simple, a concept few business operations comprehend. If the goal is to keep things simple, there wouldn’t be ordinances and bylaws to amend original statutes but a hard look at the original statute and a determination if it can be struck or replaced.
People try to slap a 2.0 on themselves too, Wayne; but it’s called parenthood.
I agree with the keeping it simple as well. I hate the word Web 2.0 – it should be called “Web Dynamic 2.0″ or something like that, because that is the root of web 2.0 (in my opinion of course). aren’t we to web 2.1 yet?