Maybe Web 3.0 is quite understandable – and a natural result

I got asked to provide a presentation to a business audience on ‘Web 3.0’ which was to their minds obviously the clear successor to the current Web 2.0 product. Yes, it really did seem to them that it was just the next release and therefore I should be able to provide a clear definition of the new features and how that would impact business. I had two pretty instant reactions to this; first it’s interesting that a pure business audience should be so interested in the topic and so obviously concerned with what it will do to their business. It does seem that people now clearly understand that the Web 2.0 change has and will continue to drive their businesses.
Second; what on earth would I say on the topic? A couple of years ago Web 3.0 was a hot discussion point, then it seemed to fade out as the whole explosion of Web 2.0 and moving towards web-based services and clouds seemed to provide so much to think about that we didn’t need to think of a new phase. So it’s a tough topic as in the last couple of years there have been builds as to what Web 3.0 really means, but they don’t seem aligned! So this post is about what I found on the topic by collating viewpoints starting with three good, and different, definitions, and starting with a good opening summary of the situation as seen in 2007.


The most popular view that started around this time was based on extending the capabilities around the dominant use of the web at this time for content. Led by none other than the founder and creator of the World Wide Web himself, Tim Berners-Lee many evangelised the concept of a Semantic Web that allowed indexing and machine understanding to move towards human capabilities in grasping the true meanings of terms, and content itself. An important pursuit that is still underway and is relatively clearly defined, including having its own entry on Wikipedia.
Not surprisingly the growth in mobility and wireless devices got in on the act recently and suggested that Web 3.0 was all about location awareness. Perhaps it’s not a total coincidence that a good post on the logic of this conclusion should be found at a site dedicated to tourism and travel! Nevertheless it’s a well written post that positions the argument against how Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 have created a direction and sets of capabilities that are of great value and increasing use by smartphones.
It’s left to Eric Schmidt the CEO of Google to draw the obvious conclusions that Web 3.0 is a marketing term (I would say hype term) and that if it means anything it means a web of small services pieced together to provide what is required. That’s not remarkable given where we are at the end of 2010, but check the post again and you will see that was Eric’s conclusion in 2007! The date when the confusion all started!
The idea of Web 1.0 = content, Web 2.0 = people and Web 3.0 = services has a nice symmetrical feel to it, in fact it feels basically right as such a definition would include the two other major definitions as well. So if we put these things all together what picture do we see? To me it’s the ‘context driven web’ meaning that it brings together all of the above aspects which are unstructured and presents them to the user in the context of their current requirement in a manner that is structured to this context.
In moving to this the interface in how things are perceived, delivered and interfaced to a human, (as opposed to data or content delivered from a computer) is changing and we increasingly see it becoming multimedia with multi-touch tablets etc. I have mentioned before the remarkable capability that Qwiki demonstrated as the winner of the 2010 Tech Crunch award and it is something of a visual proof point to this. Take a look at the video on the home page of QWiki to see what I mean.
What did I conclude that this meant for business to come back to the original reason for researching the topic again? It strengthens the current move towards understanding that the innovation in business is, and increasingly will be, about how you reach and interact with your community of customers, partners and suppliers to orchestrate together situations in which everyone wins in their context of what that means.
A tall order perhaps but when people get together and discuss things isn’t that what they try to do? Make the bits and pieces all fit together into something that they all think is best? But if that’s the world enterprises will be playing in then they have some work to do in their internal capabilities to be able to enable their staff to take part in the continual flow of online opportunities that an expanded web, call it 3.0 if you must, will bring.

About the author

61.thumbnail Maybe Web 3.0 is quite understandable – and a natural result 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.

6 Responses to Maybe Web 3.0 is quite understandable – and a natural result

  • Gopal Padinjaruveetil Gopal Padinjaruveetil says:

    Andy,
    As usual a great post, and right on the mark
    While Web 1.0= Content and Web 2.0 = People, I feel Web 3.0 will be “YOU” (the Consumer).
    Web 2.0 brought to an end to the 1% rule that was there in Web 1.0 where 1% of the people created content on the Web and 99% of the people read or consumed that content. In Web 2.0 statistics indicate now about 21% of the people are actively creating content on the Web through blog, Discussion Forums, Facebook, and other Social media phenomenon.
    While Web 2.0 has connected people it has also created a chaos with the massive amount of content that is being created every second making it difficult to find relevant content in the right context for “ME”.
    Web 3.0 will bring an end to this chaos by bringing in Context Aware Computing (devices) and Context Aware Applications that will bring “YOU” to the center of the information world of Web- by delivering Content/Data/information that “YOU “are interested in reading, buying and interacting with..
    The key element of Web 3.0 will be that the application and device ” in context ” will try to determine the meaning of the text or other data and then create connections for “YOU” the user.( which is what Semantic Web is all about)
    So Web 3.0 will be all about “YOU” and the “YOU Experience” that Capgemini has been promising!

  • Balt Leenman says:

    Nice blog! Indeed, not much talking on Web 3.0 these days.
    I buy: Web 1.0 = content, Web 2.0 = people and Web 3.0 = services, thank you for the QWiki example!
    What about Web2.0 backoffice integration? there is a way to go on that to unleash more value to the business user…

  • Andy Mulholland Andy Mulholland says:

    Hi Gopal – some good observations in your post, and you have developed the point in an interesting direction. I believe that people factor will be more of a change force than we perhaps currently think as the new generations bring into business change their radicalisation towards the way they ‘are’ as people grown up with and immersed in technology.
    That’s the point when an even more different set of capabilities that leave web 2.0 and the current interactive and collaborative new wave behind and create what you refer to as web 3.0. For me the current ways of defining web 3.0 around technology are not too sound, it will be, as you say, more likely defined around people ‘mashing’ together to suit their behaviour. Andy

  • Andy Mulholland Andy Mulholland says:

    I am quite concerned that we will end up in a similar situation as at the time of the last disruptive technology shift. The parallels with the introduction of the PC are amazing, again it was outside the traditional role of the then MIS dept adding new capabilities with new technologies and driven by business managers, but as it spread and became ubiquitous it forced a reorganisation that created the IT dept as we know it and ERP to unleash the value for an enterprise using data safely. The risk now is around a similar breaking of the process models that allow auditors to understand the control, and enterprises to learn and leverage good new practices from one area to the rest. The challenge is, as before, to recognise this risk, and as much as the huge rewards, and develop their approach accordingly.

  • Balt Leenman says:

    Hi Andy,
    thank you for your reply. Good that you remind us to the paradigm shift caused by PC in the client/server era.
    Power to the (business) user!
    What a great benefit it gives, crossing the Business/IT Gap which is so painfully yawning at Enterprise organizations.
    I believe ‘Hybric Cloud architecture’ can fix this: integrating Web 2.0 / 3.0 into the legacy/ERP landscape…
    wkr, balt

  • Andy Mulholland Andy Mulholland says:

    I hope that there are enough older managers to remember this and to positively ‘manage’ to ensure that it doesn’t happen, but unfortunately it seems to be a repeat of the situation where senior managers resisted change and email only now its social and collaborative tools. BUT I do believe that this time we are better prepared and that we do have stronger tools as the current enterprise vendors are keen to support and develop the new technologies and capabilities as extensions of their current positioning.

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>