An interesting and salutary move is being initiated in the small world of both Web and Enterprise 2.0. It's what I call a "de-technologization" of the concept and I predict that it will take Enterprise 2.0 back to a ground it should not have left: the enterprise as a productive organization that must deal with internal rules and constraints.

It appeared in my old definition of Enterprise 2.0 in 2007 and, particularly in my predictions for 2009. Now it seems that the time is coming. It's the beginning of a major turn from the vision that promotes Web 2.0 tools used within companies as a goal by itself, back to the vision of them being a part of a larger ecosystem.

This is confirmed by two posts I read recently.

In this post, Robert Scobble is noting that, even if many brilliant people comment and analyze the tech side of Web 2.0, they still miss the business side of things. In my experience, the reality of business and its context are seldom taken into account. Even if the goals and the needs are clear, we often continue to lack a deep analysis of the context and a reliable way to explain how to make things work for existing business. This was for the Web 2.0 side.

On the Enterprise 2.0 side, I noticed this post from Martin Koser about the the next Enterprise 2.0 Summit in Frankfurt, which raises many sensible points.

For the "trusted" circle of experts feedback we can say that the biggest topic of the behind the scenes discussions was the dichotomy between orderly processes (read BPM) and the fuzzy world of Social Software (read Enterprise 2.0), how to deal with it, and basically how to tackle the topic at the conference. So while we all shared understanding a nice thread evolved that covered things like:

• How do we prevent that social software works out to be just another "silo" ("build a wiki, and they will come")?
• How can we integrate social software into existing domains, usage arenas and task specific systems?
• What are the best ways to start with social software in the enterprise?
• How do we ensure that social software implementations turn out to be "complementary and integrative"? Is it a good idea to marry up SNS functionality with BPM software

That's what I call a well-timed "back to basics."

• It's Business Process Management: that's the way things are done and thinking, even for a second, that any company will once get rid of their BPM is nonsense. It's the traditional side of its activity.

• It's "Ad hoc Process Capability": Its capability to get organized in ad hoc and temporary structures, in order to face a given situation. Employee-driven processes in order to tie-in all the needed expertise and skills were a need that BPM wasn't able to meet on its own. A kind of service oriented organization. That is not a new issue but "Things 2.0" allow to deal with it more effectively. But it still requires a "need - plan - execution" approach.

• It's "Serendipity Capability" which is the most "2.0" part of the question: a better use of employee's skills in order to do "great and unexpected things" while putting a new engagement model to work, a new community-ship. It's a great plus and sometimes that must not make us forget the two previous points which are about 95% of the corporate activity.

If any technology has to globally support the way a business works, it has to be able to address these three needs. If not, bridges will have to be built. But remember it won't be exempt from having to specifically reflect the way people work, and how things are done.

So it's easy to understand that excelling in understanding and delivering technology is only a part of the question. The rest plunges us into processes and management practices. This makes me say that the missing link is the integration of practices 2.0, then tools, with what's currently existing. It forces us to analyze and understand the current reality, to get ours hands dirty with 1.0 solutions and diagnose what is necessary, what can be done, and how. And to avoid setting ambitious goals no one understands.

In short, things will start with BPM, at least if a global implementation is targeted: a small motivated team being able to change its practices on its own, on the fly.

• Must tools 2.0 integrate BPM? In my experience, yes, at least to a certain extent. They have to remain flexible enough to be able to address the non-BPM issues and make the famous "freeform collaboration" possible. Links and bridges are needed with BPM tools to avoid making new Enterprise 2.0 systems too intrusive.

• Will it be enough? Of course not. A big part of the work that has to be done will not be about technical integration, but about human integration. Enterprises will have to translate parts of their processes into practices and teach their employees how to own and update them as the environment changes. We should never forget the current situation when trying to design the future.

It seems that Enterprise 2.0 is back on track, returning to the very nature of enterprise: getting organized to produce more efficiently. Good news.

Originally published on Bertrand Duperrin's Notepad.

Past Articles by This Author:

• Enterprise 2.0 (Finally) Moves Toward the Enterprise
• Enterprise 2.0: My Predictions for 2009