Reply to comment

As an IT manager, whenever I am faced with a new cool technology I am faced with a dilemma.
On personal level am always tempted to deploy it and see how it fans out. I am, after all, something of a geek. I am also outspoken and something of an exhibitionist.
On a managerial level I almost automatically call on the help desk to put on their flak jackets and helmets, arm the sysadmins with smoke and tear gas canisters, turn to the boffins and proclaim:
Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King!
IT is primarily the art of provisioning. Finding the technology that provides additional value to your business, and implementing it in the least disruptive way. Data and processes are assets we need to both protect and utilize. Social networking, Instant messaging, blogging and other means of communication may enhance a business, but may also put it in risk. This is the business perspective of IT.
There is also a human element. The technology divide has not decreased due to Internet. People can do much more with our computers, but they do not necessarily understand the implication more then they did before. If any thing, shining new interfaces hide mode complex issues then those that existed before. Web 2.0 adds even more complexities.
Web 2.0 tools can enable people to be more entrepreneurial, even in a corporate environment. As those tools are abandonment, and most are freely (or cheaply available), it seems almost inexcusable not to use them. But not all business or business users are entrepreneurial in the Web 2.0 way of thinking, for some, the overhead of learning and managing new technologies can actually reduce their productivity.
To make things worse, web 2.0 tools are turning on their users. Those users, first hailed as friends and community members are now viewed as raw martial for the tools providers. The real clients are the advertisers, and on their heals the spammers and phishers.
One of the main problems is that media (both old and new), are fascinated more by the shiny new toys, belittle the impact this can have on individuals and business. Politicians, on the other hand, are scared by technology they, and a large number of their constituents, don't even start to understand.
Don't get me wrong, I tweet, I buzz, I blog, I do all the Web 2.0 spiel. I am a freelance consultant, and it makes business sense to me. I will never be a private, anonymous person again. My views on IT, politics, media, religion are out there. I may lose a job or gain a job over this, but this is a decision I made. Others, many others, did not make that decision. They assumed their facebook accounts for communicating with their friends and relatives. They assumed their gmail accounts were for private e-mail communications. They were right at one time, they are now wrong.
The most upsetting thing, from my point of view, is that this could have been avoided by following simple old IT practices: testing, piloting and provisioning. To make things worse, the one core element of Web 2.0 was missed altogether: transparency.