You have presented an extremely good argument and I agree with many points like “these primary goals have always been in place as we’ve introduced better technology tools” and “democratization of the workforce”.

I was thinking whether can we have Enterprise 2.0 within an organisation without the software. I guess the answer is yes but it will be much more challenging without the software.

I think you make alot of sense here. Give me some time and I will come up with an updated definition. This is interesting.

Although I wince when I think the right path is to rebrand e20 with a “social” makeover, I’m not sure we should define e20 as a “platform,” either. The aim to “help organisations innovate, communicate, connect, and coordinate more efficiently and effectively” definitely sums up the operational goals for e20, but in my view, e20 moves far beyond these as well in to a strategic sphere. In fact, these primary goals have always been in place as we’ve introduced better technology tools for knowledge workers. (file-sharing, networks, email, etc.)

Where it gets complicated and, perhaps, interesting is looking above the “trees” of these primary goals and seeing the “forest.” The forest is a revolutionary new way to work. It includes the democratization of the workforce and empowers individuals to realize their potential… all of which ultimately increases a company’s ability to execute with more agility, make better decisions, and compete more effectively.

So e20 is not a platform, but a new constitution of sorts for 21st century work.

It’s late and I may not have made sense, but wanted to weigh in on your post.