The sheen of Web 2.0 is fading. People have laid their claim on the next ‘version’ – 3.0. See how our thinking is so linear. Why are we forcing ourselves to believe, and in retrospect, that there was something called Web 1.0! Isn’t that how versioning happens?
I’d rather have called it Web-as-a-Platform (WaaP) because that’s really what it is.
My reasoning is simply that by ‘componentising’ the Web we have created -
- a way for individuals and groups to ‘talk’ to the world and to each other in ‘open spaces’;
- collaborative software to capture, exchange and share collective ideas and ideologies;
- a philosophy where people can improve upon – or add value – to other people’s efforts; and
- less dependence on technology ‘consultants’.
What I have yet not been able to see is the ‘meta’ part of the phenomenon. Call it Web-as-a-Vehicle (WaaV) – likened to a mass transportation system and not a car. I might call it Meta-more-for-less (sounds like metamorphosis). We need a hard look quickly at how to design the interfaces (if they do exist) between the existing technology components or we run the risk of building yet another set of ‘silos’ made up of existing Web 2.0 pieces. Which in simple terms means bridging the “gap in capability” between the ‘individual’ creating the content and the techie who built the component.
Google’s Chief economist, Hal Varian, says executives in wired organisations need a sharper understanding of how technology empowers innovation, here.
… the kinds of innovations I think will arise on top of that will be innovations in how work is done. And that’s going to be one of the most exciting aspects, in my opinion.
That’s the key here. How work is done must supersede how things work.