Corporate news

Werner Buhre about the Social Semantic Web

SWC: "Werner, you are working for one of the largest telecommunications companies between Lake Constance and the Black Sea. Which impact did the arrival of Web 2.0 have on your company?"

The impact was from an overall viewpoint basically just an irritation, not more. The company developed some Web 2.0 products like a Bloging Platform, a Fotoshare etc., but the focus of company strategy stayed on mainstream cashcows that are Non-Web 2.0 solutions. The majority hasn’t understood Web 2.0, and some 2.0 tools have been top down implemented, not bottom up. So historically grown management layers prevent Swarm Creativity.

SWC: "You are renowned in your business as one of the Web 2.0 masterminds. You make heavy use of podcasts, weblogs, wikis and all these "fancy" new ways to communicate. How has your daily work changed as a Communications Manager?"

Sorry  :-) !!  I’m not a mastermind. My work-life still consists of Try & Error. But my personal daily work-style has definitely changed. I’m not communicating any more with a megaphone – “one to all” – it’s more “one to some certain groups”, and they communicate back! So there is more conversation than advertising. Now we communicate more Long-tail, meaning our topics are more content loaded and reach specific target groups.

SWC: "Your weblog is dealing a lot with one of the key questions concerning the next generation web: How will mass collaboration be organized? Is there collective intelligence for the benefit of the individuals or merely for the advantage of the advertising industry?"

Good question! I guess Swarm Intelligence or Swarm Creativity is for the benefit of the individual AND the group AND the society (and the advertising industry).



To state it a little bit more politically: Swarm Intelligence is a creative ability inherent to teams or groups. Swarm Intelligence only works with the Open Source Concept. Who will have the benefit? Everybody more or less. Companies that can coax or pay others to contribute to their knowledge will make profit. The rule is: Immerse yourself in the swarm. Altruism sells the brand.



So Swarm Intelligence and the internet in general often are intermingled with Democracy. It’s a group activity like democracy, but in a democratic system you can decide and vote and delegate someone to parliament to put decisions (in your name) into action. This is not the case in Swarm Intelligence. You don’t delegate, you contribute. It’s just a communication method that enables better information and therefore knowledge and solutions.

SWC: "How can/must a telco-company nowadays face the big challenge of our web-future - do you - as US-companies - have think-tanks or the like?"

Internally we have a Think Tank that deals with newly emerging technologies. They do have knowledge exchange with external experts. And second we financially support a young company that develops new applications in the Web 2.0 world. They are independent and develop what they think might be interesting. We just have the right to buy these applications first before these are presented to the market.

SWC: "How is your fellow-employee´s attitude towards new web-technologies? Probably not all of them are "techies"? Are you working on communication-models in this context?"


It’s similar to Wikipedia. All like it. Many use it. Some contribute. Just a handful is inspiringly active. To foster a Web 2.0 mind we use an internal Wiki and Blogs.

SWC: "Just recently Facebook has shown that the succes of Web 2.0 usage is a matter of trust. This is also true for corporate use. What is your recommendation towards establishing trust between service provider and service user in a social networking environment?"

Trust is built when you deliver what has been promised or what is expected. It’s as simple and as tough as that. And transparency contributes to trust.



On the behalf of Facebook: Do you think it is trustworthy company politics if you accept investors and Shareholders that are part of the CIA company network? I’m done with privacy in the Facebook style.

SWC: "How is the phenomenon of Web 2.0 being perceived from an upper management perspective - freak show or serious business?"

I’m not a member of the top management board, therefore I cannot speak in the name of my company. But my personal impression is, top management takes Web 2.0 serious, but not as a new broad company strategy or main business target. It’s certainly permitted to use time and some of the infrastructure resources to involve in Web 2.0.

SWC: "Following the new web paradigms e.g. the idea of Nova Spivack´s Metaweb: The Web connects information. Semantic Web connects knowledge. Social Software connects people. The Metaweb connects intelligence: What is your forecast? Do you think this (future) concept of social connectivity and our new kind of dealing with the Web will become true in the next few years? Imagine a world ten years from now. How should a social web look like?

I agree with Helmut Karner, who says in Austria Web 2.0 hasn’t yet arrived. We are late. We make our economical fortune nowadays in the European East - and these countries are way back in Web 2.0 themselves. So the benefits of the Semantic Web have yet to be promoted. And some business concepts will need semantics earlier than others. So my estimation would be: In two three years the bulk of the new business opportunities have been decided on in the European East. Then we will heavily invest in Web 2.0 and Semantic Web to compare Austria again with High Tech Societies like the U.S., Canada, Finland, Norway, Chorea, Taiwan, Japan, and maybe India.



How should a Social Web look alike? Transparent. Open. User oriented. Non-hierarchical. Friendly. Carried along by long term goals to provide a future. A knowledge net – not a spy net.