The number two seems to be dominating the headlines and vendors’ marketing strategies at present. Nearly every major IT technology suddenly has a 2.0 tagged on the end of its name. This, in turn, has led to conferences, books and seminars touting the latest 2.0 technologies and architectures. Is this all marketing hype, or is there some value in understanding what’s special about these technology advances?

It all started with Web 2.0, which has its origins in a series of Web development conferences started in 2004 by O’Reilly Media and MediaLive International (now owned by CMP Media). The objective in creating the concept of Web 2.0 was to identify and bring together a set of technologies that represent a new way of deploying Web applications that are not only more powerful, but also easier to develop and use.

Another key aspect of Web 2.0 is that it represents a disruptive set of technologies that shift the balance of control away from the IT department and toward end user self-sufficiency. Technology examples here include wikis, blogs, social networking and mashups.

Enabling users to be more self-sufficient improves productivity, reduces costs and, most importantly, encourages the sharing of information and expertise in organizations. Web 2.0 at present, however, is not for everyone. Some Web 2.0 technologies are suited only to technically experienced and more motivated users. How many executives and senior managers have the time or the inclination to write a blog or update a wiki? How many users know what a tag cloud is?

The biggest issue for IT is loss of control. Blogs are a good example here. Prior to Web 2.0, document publishing was controlled by governance procedures that ensured the information was accurate, didn’t contain confidential or derogatory material and was published in accordance with an organization’s formal taxonomy. The advent of blogs and social networking has led to self-publishing, no content control, and user self-tagging and folksonomies.

Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0
Encarta vs. Wikipedia
AltaVista vs. Google
Hotmail vs. Yahoo Mail
Mp3.com vs iTunes
MapQuest vs. Google Maps
Netscape vs. Firefox

Web 2.0 Components
Open data formats
No data lock-in
User created data
Users own their data
Ability to use external data
Data shared across devices

Architecture of Participation
Customer self-services
Community and sense of ownership
Content democracy
Collective Intelligence
Encouraged User Contribution
Easier to re-use and re-mix
Providing a service, not a product

Rich User Experience
Easy to use
Rich user interface
Build social networks
Function like a traditional app

Core Web 2.0 Technologies

Ajax
RSS
Web Standards (DOM, XHTML, CSS)
Web Services and Open APIs

What next?
Check Google's Open Social.