204 Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies within the Enterprise management, online glossaries, and dictionaries, discussion groups, or general information applica- tions are just a few a examples of where the end user can provide value (Reinhold, 2006). The major difference between a wiki and blog is that the wiki user can alter the original content while the blog user can only add information in the form of comments. While stating that anyone can alter content, some large scale wiki environments have extensive role definitions which define who can perform functions of update, restore, delete, and creation. Wikipedia, like many wiki type projects, have readers, editors, administrators, patrollers, policy makers, subject matter experts, content maintainers, software developers, and system operators (Riehle, 2006), all of which create an environment open to sharing information and knowledge to a large group of users. Sample Wiki URLs Disney’s Parent Wiki (http://family.• go.com/parentpedia) Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/)• Reuters Financial Glossary (http://glos-• sary.reuters.com/) Internet 2 (https://wiki.internet2.edu/con-• uence/dashboard.action) RSS Technologies Originally developed by Netscape, RSS was intended to publish news type information based upon a subscription framework (Lerner, 2004). Many Internet users have experienced the frus- tration of searching Internet sites for hours at a time to find relevant information. RSS is an XML based content-syndication protocol that allows Web sites to share information as well as aggregate information based upon the users needs (Cold, 2006). In the simplest form, RSS shares the metadata about the content without actually delivering the entire information source. An au- thor might publish the title, description, publish date, and copyrights to anyone that subscribes to the feed. The end user is required to have an ap- plication called an aggregator in order to receive the information. By having the RSS aggregator application, end users are not required to visit each site in order to obtain information. From an end user perspective, the RSS technology changes the communication method from a search and discover to a notification model. Users can locate content that is pertinent to their job and subscribe to the communication. Sample RSS URLs Newsgator (http://www.newsgator.com/)• FeedBurner (http://www.feedburner.com/)• Pluck (http://www.pluck.com/)• Blog Lines (http://www.bloglines.com/)• Social Tagging Social tagging describes the collaborative activity of marking shared online content with keywords or tags as a way to organize content for future navigation, filtering, or search (Gibson, Teasley, & Yew, 2006). Traditional information architec- ture utilized a central taxonomy or classification scheme in order to place information into specific pre-defined bucket or category. The assumption was that trained librarians understood more about information content and context than the average user. While this might have been true for the local library with the utilization of the Dewey Decimal system, the enormous amount of content on the Internet makes this type of system un-manageable. Tagging offers a number of benefits to the end user community. Perhaps the most important feature to the individual is able to bookmark the informa- tion in a way that is easier for them to recall at a later date. The benefit of this ability on a personal basis is obvious but what about the impact to the community at large. The idea of social tagging is allowing multiple users to tag content in a way that makes sense to them; by combining these tags, 205 Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies within the Enterprise users create an environment where the opinions of the majority define the appropriateness of the tags themselves. The act of creating a collection of popular tags is referred to as a folksonomy which is defined as a folk taxonomy of important and emerging content within the user community (Ahn, Davis, Fake, Fox, Furnas, Golder, Marlow, Naaman, & Schachter, 2006). The vocabulary problem is defined by the fact that different users define content in different ways. The disagreement can lead to missed information or inefficient user interactions (Boyd, Davis, Marlow, & Naaman, 2006). One of the best examples of social tagging is Flickr which allows user to upload images and “tag” them with appropriate metadata keywords. Other users, who view your images, can also tag them with their concept of appropriate keywords. After a critical mass has been reached, the result- ing tag collection will identify images correctly and without bias. Sample Social Tagging URLs Flickr(http://www.ickr.com/)• YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/)• Del.icio.us (http://del.icio.us/)• Technorati (http://technorati.com/)• Mashups: Integrating Information The final Web 2.0 technology describes the ef- forts around information integration or sometimes referred to as “mashups.” These applications can be combined to deliver additional value that the individual parts could not deliver on their own. One example is HousingMaps.com that combines the Google mapping application with a real estate listing service on Craiglists.com (Jhingran, 2006). Other examples include Chicagocrime.org who overlays local crime statistics onto Google Maps so end users can see what crimes were commit- ted recently in the neighborhood. Another site synchronizes Yahoo! Inc.’s real-time traffic data with Google Maps. Much of the work with Web services will enable greater extensions of mash- ups and combine many different businesses and business models. Organizations, like Amazon and Microsoft are embracing the mash-up movement by offering developers easier access to their data and services. Moreover, they’re programming their services so that more computing tasks, such as displaying maps onscreen, get done on the users’ Personal Computers rather than on their far-flung servers (Hof, 2005) Sample Mashup URLs Housing Maps: (http://www.housingmaps.• com/) Chicago Crime (http://www.chicagocrime.• org) Healthcare Product (http://www.vimo.• com/) Global Disease Map (http://healthmap.• org/) User Contributed Content One of the basic themes of Web 2.0 is user con- tributed information. The value derived from the contributed content comes not from a subject matter expert, but rather from individuals whose small contributions add up. One example of user contributed content is the product review systems like Amazon.com and reputation systems used with ebay.com. A common practice of online merchants is to enable their customers to review or to express opinions on the products they have purchased (Hu & Liu, 2004). Online reviews are a major source of information for consumers and demonstrated enormous implications for a wide range of management activities, such as brand building, customer acquisition and retention, product development, and quality assurance (Hu, Pavlou, & Zhang, 2006). A person’s reputation is a valuable piece of information that can be used when deciding whether or not to interact or do busi- ness with. A reputation system is a bi-directional 206 Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies within the Enterprise medium where buyers post feedback on sellers and vice versa. For example, eBay buyers vol- untarily comment on the quality of service, their satisfaction with the item traded, and promptness of shipping. Sellers comment about the prompt payment from buyers, or respond to comments left by the buyer (Christodorescu, Ganapathy, Giffin, Kruger, Rubin, & Wang, 2005). Reputa- tion systems may be categorized in three basic types: ranking, rating, and collaborative. Rank- ing systems use quantifiable measures of users’ behavior to generate and rating. Rating systems use explicit evaluations given by users in order to define a measure of interest or trust. Finally, collaborative filtering systems determine the level of relationship between the two individuals before placing a weight on the information. For example, if a user has reviewed similar items in the past then the relevancy of a new rating will be higher (Davis, Farnham, & Jensen, 2002). SAMPLE USER CONTRIBUTED CONTENT URLS Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com)• Ebay (http://www.ebay.com)• Trip Advisor (http://www.tripadvisor.com/)• Review Centre (http://www.reviewcentre.• com/) Web 1.0 Compared to Web 2.0 While the differences between Web 1.0 and 2.0 are grey at best, we can attempt to draw some segmen- tation by reviewing the high level characteristics. Table 1 provides a side by side comparison of these technologies. In the Web 1.0 environment, information was largely static and controlled by a few resources. Specifically, the individual or organization that produced this information pushed information to the end user by either controlling the access or limiting the feedback options. Web 2.0 turns that model around and create a far greater dynamic environment where each consumer has the ability to contribute to the overall value of the information itself. Instead of searching and browsing topics, Web 2.0 users are allowed to publish and subscribe to the content which results is a more bottom up implementation. The following section will review how these new technologies can be integrated into the current knowledge environments that have traditionally followed the command and control model of information. Enterprise 2.0 Enterprise 2.0 is a term used to describe the integration of the Web 2.0 technology portfolio inside of the organization. Both the producers and Table 1. Characteristics of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 Web 1.0 Characteristics Web 2.0 Characteristics Static Content Dynamic Content Producer Based Information Participatory Based Information Messages Pushed to Consumer Messages Pulled by Consumer Institutional Control Individual Enabled Top Down Implementation Bottom Up Implementation Users Search and Browse Users Publish and Subscribe Transactional Based Interactions Relationship Based Interactions Goal of Mass Adoption Goal of Niche Adoption Taxonomy Folksonomy 207 Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies within the Enterprise consumers of the information will reside inside the organization. If either of the customer clas- sifications involve outside entities then the Web 2.0 tag should be used. McAfee (2006) indicates a new wave of business communication tools which allow for more spontaneous, knowledge- based collaboration. These new tools, the author contends, may well supplant other communication and knowledge management systems with their superior ability to capture tacit knowledge, best practices and relevant experiences from through- out a company and make them readily available to more users. For all its appeal to the young and the wired, Web 2.0 may end up making its greatest impact in business. And that could usher in more changes in corporations, already in the throes of such tech-driven transformations as globalization and outsourcing. Indeed, what some are calling Enterprise 2.0 could flatten a raft of organizational boundaries; between managers and employees and between the company and its partners and customers (Hof, 2005). Barriers to Adoption This chapter does not address issues around in- frastructure or software selection. The research wanted to look at the barriers to adoption assum- ing all other variables are constant and normally taken into account on most implementations. The following barriers of adoption are not related to the specific technology. Rather, they focus on the end user and the major issues impacted them. This makes sense in Web 2.0 the end user contributes as much to the success of the implementation as any other component. Awareness Issues The awareness issue describes an environment where of the majority of users have never heard of Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, Collaboration, and Social Software. More importantly, end users have not heard of the internal product offering, if one exists. Communication is one of the most critical aspects of letting people know that a collabora- tive or social application is available. Traditional information technology solutions were focused on a single business process and the aspects of mar- keting and branding were unnecessary. However, for enterprise services this awareness can be one of the most critical functions performed early in the product’s life cycle. Like e-mail and desktop Office applications, you want a high degree of awareness across the entire enterprise. A high de- gree of awareness would be some where between 90-100 percent of the information workers within the organization. Educational Issues End users may have heard of Web 2.0 through the media but they still not understand how the technology can be used in a business setting. Once an end user becomes aware of an application, the next phase is to ensure that they understand how the application should be used. The educational area is critical since most employees above the age of 35 have not used these new types of tech- nologies. Cultural and Social Issues When organizations have overcome the aware- ness and educational gaps, then we can make the statement that the majority of the organization knows the technology is available and what can be done with it. They may still choose to use their older technology that has been used in the past. Not with standing political pressure, we are looking at cultural or social issues. These issues can emerge when end users fear change, afraid of new methods, or prefer to work in a command and control model. 208 Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies within the Enterprise Political Issues The final area focuses on the political pressure organizations place on users. Political pressure may focus around strategic direction, vendor as- sociations, or organizational structures. In smaller organizations, these issues may not be as big an impact as in a large distributed environment. INTEGRATION OF WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES The studied organization is a Fortune 500 tele- communications company that has gone through several acquisitions over the past few years. With the integration of three companies, the presented framework went through several different field trials over the course of three years. This allowed the research to apply the framework into three different companies in order to test the validity in a real business environment. The framework was developed after five years of trials in traditional knowledge management systems. The application of the framework to collaborative tools started in 2004 and progressed through 2007. The initial deployment focused on Microsoft’s Sharepoint which is a collaborative tool that has most of the Web 2.0 elements described in the prior section. (See Figure 1.) Common Situation While all three implementations varied by size of the firm, number of employees, and basic infra- structure, the implementations had one common characteristic. Flat line growth occurred within six months in each of the deployments. Flat line growth occurs when new orders show no growth over a three to six month period. Figure 2 provides the different site metrics collected prior to the implementation of the proposed framework. The lines have been cut off to indicate the point in time the framework was applied to the organization. In all three cases, the program had a solid be- ginning but reached a level of saturation between 90 and 120 collaborative sites. For clarity, the number of collaborative sites continued to grow but could not outpace the same number of dele- tions. A deletion occurs when a program, project, or resource no longer needs the collaborative or social software environment. On average, the leveling off of site demand occurred between five and six months. Figure 1. Adoption rates prior to implementing the framework 209 Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies within the Enterprise Business Model Framework At the highest level, a business model is how an organization creates value. Timmers (1998) de- fine a business in respect to the architecture for the product, service, and information flows, the benefits for the various actors, and the sources of revenue. In reality, an organization can have a variety of business models, each is simply an artificial representation of reality which detracts focus from certain aspects while concentrating on others (Kittl, Petrovic, & Teksten, 2001). This research uses the concepts of a business model, not in terms of commerce, but focused on the various interacting parts required to deliver business value. Figure 2 provides an overview of the business model used to describe functional designation of work. Some researchers refer to this as the resource model. The model describes seven functional areas and four portfolio or product areas. Leadership and management are two functional areas that will not be covered in this chapter to any depth. The basic idea is that all information technology activities would include coordination, communication, and cooperation activities which are usually performed by these two groups. Starting at the top of Figure 2, traditional implementations of information technology would include the operational and architecture functions. Operations would include activities such as hard- ware monitoring, software installation, backup, recovery, security, and maintenance. Computer Operations is a critical function to ensure delivery of a reliable, scalable, and functional infrastruc- ture. This area must be governed with a high degree of control in order to maintain the stability of the environment. Architecture focuses on the design, planning, and software selection within the enterprise. Generally speaking, architecture includes the activities of defining and modeling the environment which may include the following architectures: business, application, data, informa- tion, technology, and product architecture (Pereira & Sousa, 2004). Traditionally, these components focused on ensuring that the environment did not fail from an infrastructure point of view. The vast majority of Web 2.0 implementations will focus on these core elements to ensure that the program operates effectively. The idea of an implementation failing would indicate the hardware or software failed to deliver the business value consistently Figure 2. Implementation business model 210 Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies within the Enterprise over time. The problem with this approach is that having a perfect infrastructure does not guaran- tee mass adoption which is the truest measure of success. In the case of internally developed Web 2.0 applications or the utilization of open source, the architecture area could be expanded to encompass the entire System Development Lifecycle (SDLC). We can define success (mass adoption) from two perspectives. In any knowledge type of ap- plication, you will have two key customer classes: the producer of the information and consumer of the information. The producer is the person, com- munity, or application that creates a reusable asset in the form of information utilizing the Web 2.0 tools. This might include a wiki page or ownership to a specific weblog. The consumer is responsible for locating and accessing the information, assess- ing the ability to reuse the information, adapting to the information and integrating the information into the business. The consumer might not actually contribute to the environment in the form of com- ments or informational update. Production rates for Web 2.0 applications are still relatively low as compared to the number of users that consume the information. In one survey, only 11 percent of respondents would even consider contributing to Wikipedia while the actual number of contributors is less than 1 percent overall. When you have mil- lions of consumers, a 1 percent contributor rate is pretty good. However, in an enterprise of 20,000 people that would indicate you will only have 20 contributors. This demonstrates the criticality of building up a producer community towards the long term goal of mass adoption. Not only do we need to focus on the information contained within the environment but also with the utilization of that information. The content must be used and to a greater degree, the utilization of the content drives the return on investment. This is not a trivial point; organizations must focus on the components of success and understand that having great hardware, software and functionality is simply the price of entry into the Web 2.0 environment. Business Development Located at the bottom right side of Figure 2 is the representation of the customer which could either be the producer or a consumer of the information. The overall framework centers around the cus- tomer behavior. The box on the left represents the functions of business development which we can define as any activity that impacts awareness and education before someone becomes a customer. Like the business functions of marketing, brand- ing, and selling, business development strives to encourage participation. The ultimate goal is to ensure that every person in the enterprise knows these tools exist, understand how they can be used, and knows where to go to get engaged. Client-Support The vast majority of information workers are not familiar with virtual solutions and need guidance on how to best utilize and integrate this technol- ogy into their day to day operations. End users will ask five basic questions of the collaborative environment: What collaborative products and services • are available to me? How can I utilize these products and ser-• vices within my environment? Who can help me in case I need some pro-• fessional guidance? Are the collaborative applications ready • for enterprise usage? How am I doing in comparison to others or • against best practices? In order to address these questions, organiza- tions should look toward developing a support group that can enable the end user rather than hindering their understanding of a collaborative environment. Meeting the needs of the customer may vary depending on the level of knowledge the user brings to the environment. Customers 211 Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies within the Enterprise who are new to technology expect a high level of reliability and support in order to gain the greatest value possible (Johnston & Supra, 1997). Customer service should not be homogeneous and both the online and physical support environ- ments need to take into account the experience level of the end user (Dutta & Roy, 2006). The customer wants to know what products, services, and documentation are available to them within the collaborative environment. The content of an online environment is not limited to the product or services provided. Rather, content includes the solutions and strategies employed to make it easy for the user to accomplish important tasks, such as information retrieval, search, and obtaining feedback (Calongne, 2001). Support information or content should include the product and service quantity, quality, and relevance to the customer (Palmer, 2002). Technologists often make the mistake of assuming a certain level of expertise with the user community. Unlike e-mail or Of- fice products (Word Processing or Spreadsheet), collaborative tools are fairly unknown to the end user. A Client-Support environment would include many of the following components: Training and Education• Subject Matter Expert Information• Technical Supports and Operational • Information Best Practices and “How To” • Documentation Community of Practice• Ordering Processes• Product, Service and Solution Overviews• End User Metrics of Content and Usage• Product and Service Development Normally when you discuss the concepts around a product, you think of products like Microsoft’s Sharepoint, Confluence, Social Text, or IBM’s Connections. These could be considered products from an architecture or operations point of view. However, from the customer perspective these are tools. A product solves a problem or generates value based on the consumption or utilization. In other words, the product is what you can do with the tool. Products in the Web 2.0 space include weblogs, wikis, collaborative intranets, virtual workspaces, RSS feed readers, book marking, and professional profiles. Each of these can be catego- rized as a product regardless of the tool selected to perform the function. Services would include both tangible and intangible value-add activities that go along with the products. Services might include templates, user guides, editing, PDF conversion, education, and training. Services must be delivered to the customer and cannot be inventoried for later use. Taken together, products and services provide the customer experience that encourages participation and end user involvement. Portfolios Not counting the infrastructure, the model iden- tifies three additional portfolios including the product portfolio, the service portfolio, and the business processes. The product portfolio would include the various products developed in the prior section. Since most products are meta-physical in nature, they must be demonstrated in the online support environment. The service portfolio will describe the services available to the end user. The idea is that products must be demonstrated while services must be described. Finally, the business process portfolio defines the business processes required to engage in the environment. Taken together, a customer may engage with several products, services and business solutions which constitute a solution offering. Assuming the ultimate goal of any Web 2.0 application is 212 Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies within the Enterprise the mass adoption of the customer base then you want to move up the value chain. The value-chain has been well documented by Joseph Pine II and James H. Gilmore. Pine and Gilmore (1997) discuss “the ex- perience economy” by tracing the value added to the coffee bean in its various iterations from pure “commodity” to pure “experience.” In their evolutionary construct there are four stages, in ascending order of sophistication the stages are commodity, good, service, experience. They point out that coffee is traded on the futures market at roughly $1 a pound (thus, about 2 cents a cup at the “commodity” level). After manufacturers roast, grind, package and distribute the bean for retail, the price jumps to between 5 and 25 cents a cup (the “goods” level). At a “run-of-the-mill” diner a cup might run from 50 cents to $1 a cup (the traditional “service” level). The authors contend that one can “Serve that same coffee in a five-star restaurant or espresso bar, where the ordering, creation, and consumption of the cup embodies a heightened ambience or sense of theatre, and consumers gladly pay anywhere from $2 to $5 for each cup.” Thus, by creating value at the “experience” level, the seller is able to charge an extremely high premium over that charged by the “service” provider. In defining their terms they argue that, “When a person buys a service, he purchases a set of intangible activities carried out on his behalf. But when he buys an experi- ence, he pays to spend time enjoying a series of memorable events that a company stages, as in a theatrical play, to engage him in a personal way.” The idea is that organizations that support the Web 2.0 implementation must move up the value chain in order to obtain the mass adoption Field Trials The first implementation of the framework oc- curred in 2004. As seen in Figure 1, the deployment had already reached the point of saturation when executive leadership contacted the author’s team to see if the framework could be applied to the Web 2.0 area. In the past, the framework had been suc- cessfully implemented in knowledge management type implementations. These systems included prior research in metadata repositories, registries, and other knowledge applications. Focusing on the left most line (Figure 1), demand had leveled off at around 100 collaborative environments with an average monthly variance of +/-5 percent. The initial review and prioritization of activities focused on providing the online support environ- ment, automating the procurement process, and developing marketing plans. These were seen as obvious gaps in the prior implementation model based on the author’s observations. The author was also able contact various user communities in order to ascertain if these gap assumptions were true. No official survey was used to collect the information other than informal conversations. Figure 3 provides the results of implementing the framework over a 36 month period of time. By the fall of 2007, the studied organization had over 13,000 collaborative sites with an aver- age monthly growth rate of 423.62 percent. As the implementation matured, less focus was placed on the business opportunity area and more on the client-support area. This would make sense, since the number of employees that utilizing the collab- orative environment was around 95 percent of the employee population. That is to say that 95 percent of the employees had heard of and used some form of the application which was determined by the unique user id logged into the system. In 2006, the studied organization was pur- chased by a larger telecommunications company. 213 Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies within the Enterprise This purchase brought together three different companies, all of which had an implementation of the collaborative suite. The adoption rates were similar to those found in Figure 1, represented by the two lines located on the right side of the chart. Executive leadership reviewed the implementa- tions and determined that the framework needed to be applied in the other two companies as well. The initial step would be to survey the new orga- nizations to see where the issues lie in adoption and determine which parts of the framework should be emphasized. Unlike the first field trial, the author had no insight into the new companies prior to the integration. Survey Tool An employee survey was used to determine which of the adoption barriers were prevalent. Based upon some initial interviews, the survey was distributed via e-mail, and incentives were used to encourage participation. One hundred employ- ees were randomly selected from the corporate directory. Two follow up e-mails were used to encourage users to participate and the average return rate was 72 percent. The questions on the survey included the following: 1. Have you ever heard of Collaborative or Social Software? (Determine Awareness) 2. If you have heard of these, does your orga- nization utilize them? (Cultural, Political, or Social) 3. What is the primary use of the Collaborative and Social Tools within your organization? (Education) 4. Please describe your overall impression (use, purpose) of the products in a few sentences? 5. Please describe your experience with these tools in a few sentences (accessed infre- quently, heavy user, loved it, etc.). Notice that no specific questions were asked to differentiate between the cultural, political or social barriers. The reason for this was that the percentage was expected to be low as compared to the other issues of awareness and education. In order to ensure the survey group didn’t know Collaborative and Social Software by other names, a product matrix was included that showed the specific products like Sharepoint, Confluence, or Open Source. The results of the surveys are presented in Figure 4. The surveys were issued in January of 2007 Figure 3. Collaborative sites after the framework application [...]... printableArticle.jhtml?articleID =20 5101618 Enright, G (20 07) Web 2. 0 vulnerabilities to watch for Retrieved July 22 , 20 07, from http://www computerworld.com/action/article=9 027 3 42 Evers, J (20 07a) Hacking for dollars Retrieved December 24 , 20 07, from http://www.news com /21 02- 7349_3-57 722 38.html Evers, J (20 07b) The security risk in Web 2. 0 Retrieved July 17, 20 07, from http://news.com com /21 02- 10 02_ 3-609 922 8.html Fanning, E (20 07) Editor’s... Policies 2 30 1.98 14.85 2- 3 Policies Available 3 18 2. 97 8.91 Most Policies Available 4 32 3.96 15.84 All Policies Available 22 96 21 .78 47. 52 Total 101 20 2 100.00 100.00 Table 7 Web site navigational ease Vendor Frequency Multinational Frequency Vendor % Multinational % Very Poor 6 7 5.94 3.47 Poor 24 27 23 .76 13.37 Few Navigational Elements 35 54 34.65 26 .73 Navigational Elements Seen 28 61 27 . 72 30 .20 ... ccTLD 22 20 42. 31 19.80 Not Fully Using ccTLD 30 54 57.69 53.47 ccTLD Used 0 27 0.00 26 .73 Total 52 101 100.00 100.00 Vendor % Mu lt i nat ional % Table 4 Web site English vs local language links M i n i - N Maximum mum Mean Std Dev Vendor - English 53 5 92 28.51 20 .04 Multinational - English 101 4 29 9 56.08 47.10 Vendor - Local Language 1 02 2 96 24 .23 19.01 Multinational - Local Language 20 2 3 177... Researchers: Web 2. 0 security seriously flawed Retrieved December 24 , 20 07, from http://www.pcworld.com/printable/ article/id,13 121 5 O’Reilly, T (20 05) What is Web 2. 0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software Retrieved July 1, 20 07, from http:www.oreilly.net.com/lpt/a/ 622 8 Orlowski, A (20 05) Web 2. 0 worm downs MySpace Retrieved July 17, 20 07, from http://www theregister.co.uk /20 05/10/17 /web2 0_worm_... Security for Web 2. 0 Retrieved July 17, 20 07, from http://www computerworld.com/action/article =28 328 3 Germain, J M (20 07) IT security and the no good, very bad Web app nightmare Retrieved December 24 , 20 07, from http://www.technewsworld.com/ story/6 020 8.html Lenssen, P (20 05) Samy, their hero: Interview Retrieved December 29 , 20 07, from http:blogoscoped.com/archive /20 05-10-14-n81 html McMillan, R (20 07) Researchers:... Differences 3 37 2. 88 18.14 Localized 0 28 0.00 13.73 Highly Localized 0 20 0.00 9.80 Total 104 20 4 100.00 100.00 Table 9 Web site local culture Vendor Frequency Multinational % 72 93 .27 35 .29 4 52 3.85 25 .49 Some Differences 1 38 0.96 18.63 Localized 0 34 0.00 16.67 Highly Localized 2 8 1. 92 3. 92 Total 23 8 Vendor % 97 Mostly St andardized • Multinational Frequency Standardized 104 20 4 100.00 100.00... % 14 5.94 6.93 15 20 14.85 9.90 38 68 37. 62 33.66 Several Pages of Support 38 51 37. 62 25 .25 Equivalent to English Site 4 49 3.96 24 .26 Total 101 20 2 100.00 100.00 Basic Support - Customer Contact 23 6 Web Site Localization Practices Table 6 Web site e-commerce and information use policies Vendor Frequency Multinational Frequency Vendor % Multinational % Not Available 70 26 69.31 12. 87 Only One or Two... 22 7 Security in a Web 2. 0 World Walker, A (20 05) How and why hackers want to get inside your machine Retrieved December 24 , 20 07, from http://www.informit.com/articles/ printerfriendly.aspx?p= 425 380 Waters, J K (20 07) Web 2. 0 entails “sleeping giant” security risk Retrieved December 24 , 20 07, from http://www.adtmag.com/print aspx?id =21 499 This work was previously published in Social Software and Web. .. Computing Machinery O’Reilly, T (20 05) What Is Web 2. 0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software Retrieved July 17, 20 06 from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/ news /20 05/09/30/what-is -web- 20 .html Palmer, J (20 02) Designing for Web site usability Computer, 35(7), 1 02 103 doi:10.1109/ MC .20 02. 1016906 Pereira, C., & Sousa, P (20 04) A method to define an enterprise... Enterprise 2. 0: The dawn of emergent collaboration Sloan Management Review, 47(3), 21 28 Integrating Web 2. 0 Technologies within the Enterprise McNay, H E (20 00) Corporate Intranets: Building Communities with Data IEEE Technology & Teamwork, 197 -20 1 Smith, D., & Valdes, R (20 05) Web 2. 0: Get ready for the next old thing Gartner Research Paper Stamford, CT Millard, D., & Ross, M (20 06) Blogs, wikis & rss: Web . & Gupta, A. (20 02) . Managing computing resources in active intranets. Interna- tional Journal of Network Management, 12( 2), 117– 128 . doi:10.10 02/ nem. 427 21 6 Integrating Web 2. 0 Technologies. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/ news /20 05/09/30/what-is -web- 20 .html Palmer, J. (20 02) . Designing for Web site us- ability. Computer, 35(7), 1 02 103. doi:10.1109/ MC .20 02. 1016906 Pereira, C., & Sousa, P. (20 04). A method to de- fine. (Evers, DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566- 122 -3.ch005 22 0 Security in a Web 2. 0 World 20 07). The adage “the best defense is a good of- fense” does not apply well to Web 2. 0 security. We cannot proactively