A Business Model or Architecture for Web 2.0

In my last Monday post I brought up the topic of Business Technology, BT, as the name for the new generation of web based technology, as opposed to IT and PC based technology, ending by posting the question. ‘What is the Business Architecture that would gain value from Business Technology?
This post is based on collecting, and collating, a wide variety of views and is my attempt in one quick post to provide an ‘ah ha’ moment that may help others. I believe there are three key elements that are delivered by Business Technology, BT, and it’s the first two that create the reason for the third being the break through that is already starting to drive business models, and therefore will lead to technology architecture.


The first is the ‘Long Tail’, the ability to use the globalisation of Internet connectivity with the specialisation of addressing a market comprised on limited numbers of individuals that have very unique demands. The whole developing Web 2.0 world has shown countless examples of how to make ‘social’ groups of shared interests into viable ‘long tail’ market places, an effect which I have described on several occasions as ‘Globalisation meets the Long Tail’, but in reality perhaps it is better thought of as ‘Personalisation’.
That leads to the second element, that of ‘Collaboration’ where by the flexibility of people leads to changes in the way a business can be administered, but without disturbing the existing IT procedures. In a Long Tail business model the one size fits all procedures of existing IT clearly won’t work in terms of the engagement model with the resulting numerous external markets. Here Web 2.0 technology can provide capabilities to link ‘events’ with ‘people and expertise’ to provide answers that can then lead to an action, that hopefully finally leads to a sale which can be recorded in the existing IT systems.
What both of these illustrate is the third element; ‘Interaction’ between people, and between processes. This leads me to suggest that the Business Model, Business Architecture and the Technology architecture are all based on shifting to an ‘interaction’ based environment. In terms of the Business Model we currently understand the terms ‘proactive’ and ‘reactive’ in respect of choosing when to change our offerings, but in respect of a largely static environment. The launch of a new offering is assumed to be the beginning of another period of stability during which the new offering will maintain a competitive position in the market.
Our choice is whether to ‘proactively’ drive the market change for everyone; Apple iPod as an example, or ‘reactively’ catch up with an MP3 player under our own brand, such as Samsung. However, in Long Tail markets the key seems to be to ‘interact’ with the potential customers to decide together how to come up with an ‘optimal’ deal for both parties. Think low cost airlines for choosing flight times, costs or destinations, or since I used the music industry, Radiohead with its offer to allow its fans to choose how much they paid to download its latest album. This same principle shows up time and time again in a wide variety of markets.
Now if that is the value proposition for Business Technology, BT, in terms of creating new markets, new revenues, even new products, then it needs the Business and Technology architecture models has to support this. And that’s a really big topic! Actually it’s the topic for my new white paper that I am planning to write over the next six weeks when business life is a little less hectic here in Europe! So any contributions and thoughts on this are welcomed!

About the author

61.thumbnail A Business Model or Architecture for Web 2.0 Capgemini Global Chief Technology Officer, Andy is a member of the Capgemini Group management board and advises on all aspects of technology-driven market changes, together with being a member of the Policy Board for the British Computer Society. Andy is the author of many white papers, and the co-author three books that have charted the current changes in technology and its use by business starting in 2006 with ‘Mashup Corporations’ detailing how enterprises could make use of Web 2.0 to develop new go to market propositions. This was followed in May 2008 by Mesh Collaboration focussing on the impact of Web 2.0 on the enterprise front office and its working techniques, then in 2010 “Enterprise Cloud Computing: A Strategy Guide for Business and Technology leaders” co-authored with well-known academic Peter Fingar and one of the leading authorities on business process, John Pyke. The book describes the wider business implications of Cloud Computing with the promise of on-demand business innovation. It looks at how businesses trade differently on the web using mash-ups but also the challenges in managing more frequent change through social tools, and what happens when cloud comes into play in fully fledged operations. Andy was voted one of the top 25 most influential CTOs in the world in 2009 by InfoWorld and is grateful to readers of Computing Weekly who voted the Capgemini CTOblog the best Blog for Business Managers and CIOs each year for the last three years.




This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to A Business Model or Architecture for Web 2.0

  • Giorgio Griziotti says:

    Dear Andy
    I would refer to 2 of your last posts “BT not IT” and “A Business Model or Architecture for Web 2.0″ :
    just submitting a collateral, limited and generic consideration on “how to deliver services” , to use an IT (and not BT) terminology, synchronized with the new environment you drafted in your posts.
    In other words to be more explicit how IT Consulting companies should change to become BT Consulting companies?
    At the heart of this there is probably some key points about the organisation model a BT company should adopt:
    As you has described in your post, there is shift from the IT classical architectures to the new ones of Web 2.0 and based on SOA and Mashups.
    In consequence incumbent IT Consulting suppliers have perhaps to accomplish an internal organisation effort to shift from the “Hierarchical” predominant Model to a “Contractual” hybrid model.
    In a large group this could be implemented switching in an appropriate and progressive way from a classical pyramidal hierarchy organisation with compartimentalized units into a more networked one where units could “expose” their services with a contractual policy.
    The goal is to create internally (and obviously with customers and partners) new services and new convergent offers
    As in other industries a BTC “agile ” and opportunely networked group could in this way exponentially improve the impact on the market.
    Something like a “mashups offering” will be at the heart of new convergent services and products adopting new business models like pay-as-you-go and software-as a service.
    Obviously this is not simple to implement and would requires not only time, investments and a strategic vision, but also a delicate gouvernance effort;
    In a first time limited experimentations in multiple markets would allow to tune the model per country, to reduce the risks and to create the credibility to be a Web 2.0 Business Technology global player and not only a new technologies specialist.
    Kind regards
    Giorgio Griziotti -TS France

  • Andy Mulholland andy.mulholland says:

    Yup the organisational side for the ‘IT’ industry is an interesting point that has not been discussed very much or at all. Again it resembles the same challenge that we went through in shifting from Mini Apps implementations to the IT era.
    I agree with your analysis of more small elements, but will add a further point.
    If solutions are made up of many smaller pieces then will there not be a new market for companies that can test and manage the integrity and reliablity of the entire business solution?
    this is as much a question that i would like to hear views on as a statement !!!
    thanks for a challenging post!

  • CTO Blog says:

    Two Phrases You Wouldn’t Expect to See Together: Reduced Complexity & Enterprise 2.0 – Guest Post by Nigel Green

    Nigel Green has been working with Carl Bate, a fellow CTO and poster on the CTO Blog to develop approaches and thinking around closing the gap between Business and Technology. Together they authored the book ‘Lost In Translation’ and support…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>