Are Web 2.0 Technologies the Mortgage-backed Securities of the Internet?

Let me be clear at the beginning: I do not dislike the “Web.0s.” I am wary of them. That’s different than not liking them. I’m excited by the possibilities of the maturing Web. I want to lean into the expanding Web with Twittering, wiki-ing, cloud computing abandon, and tap dance across the Semantic Web in a beaded gown.

But, I can’t.

I used to think that my neutrality on the Web.0 matters was an indication that I’m getting old. But now, while in the cold bath of a global economic meltdown, I’m re-evaluating my wet dishrag attitude toward Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and the ever-looming nirvana of the Semantic Web. They are powerful. They scare me and just like the too-good-to-be-true mortgages we had here in the USA, the new Web.0s promise a sort of Utopian world of collaboration and sharing that seems like it too could end badly. Especially if we don’t tend to and honor the fundamentals of Web Management.

Before I go on, let me give you some more background about me, so you know a little more about where I’m coming from. I am a semantic geek. I got a degree in philosophy in college-- but not the soul wrenching existential kind of philosophy where you wonder about yourself and get depressed. That kind of philosophy is for humanities sissies.

I studied metaphysics, specifically ontology, and semantics and philosophy of language. I had a boyfriend in college not because of my enormous wit and other questionable charms but because I knew what a Turing Machine was (and had an opinion about it). And, more importantly, the work I do on the Web is all about “the bones”: infrastructure process, governance, classification and structure, clarity and precision. How do you deliver the right “stuff” to the right person, at the right time, down the delivery channel of their preference, with style and quality so organizations can make money or further their agenda or whatever they are looking to do? That’s the cool stuff to do on the Web. Thinking about Web design all day is for sissies.

Given this background you would think I’d be all over the Web.0s. And I would be, except I think some folks are getting on board a little too quickly for my taste, without first tending to the Web Fundamentals. Web 2.0 as it’s done in a lot of organizations is built on a Web infrastructure that doesn’t respect the fundamentals of Web management or relies heavily on the movement or actions of forces which are beyond an organization’s control. It seems foolhardy, unnecessary and at times reckless for folks to jump into Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 when they can’t even do Web 1.0 soundly.

We work with organizations that don’t really know what is on their Web site or are struggling to harness the actions of their internal Web development teams. Their Web sites have taken on a life of their own. The sites are OUT OF CONTROL. Hundreds of thousands or millions of pages and content objects. Thousands of applications. It’s like the site has become The Borg and it’s sucking in content and applications and assimilating them into some undefinable entity that is minimally within the organization’s control. Then, the Web Team or someone in senior leaderships turns and looks at us and says wistfully: “We want to do Web 2.0. How can we do that?”

Organizations are jumping on the social media train without stopping to understand fully the consequences of deploying those powerful technologies. And even if the consequences are understood, few are able to deploy and maintain the technologies with any sense of quality or compliance. In going ahead and moving forward anyway, they are exposing their organizations to the risks of brand degradation, lost credibility, and in some cases, legal liability. It’s one thing (maybe) for an individual to expose themselves on the Web and quite another for an organization to do so. It is irresponsible.

So, enough griping. What are the fundamentals of the Web Management? Here’s my offering, my stab at what ought to be considered some good Web Management Fundamentals. The stuff you should just do, like save regularly, have 3 months worth of expenses in an account you can access easily, living within your means, and having an age-appropriate balanced investment portfolio.

1. There should be some relationship between any piece of content or application on a Web site and a strategic organizational objective. This is true for intranets, extranets, and Internet Web sites. If it’s not helping to get some quantifiable job done, take it off the Web.

2. An organization should always know what people and what systems are controlling its Web presence, and be aware of and manage its identity in the Web cloud. Minimally, an organization must understand who is controlling and making strategic and tactical decisions for Web sites. More difficult, but equally essential, is being aware of your organizations’ place and identity and reputation in the global Web cloud. Organizations can not afford to find out via the media that their sites contain flawed information or that they are being flamed off or mis-quoted in some obscure corner of the Web by an irate customer on some blog.

3. An organization should maintain high quality standards for Web content, data and applications, and build the internal management infrastructure to deliver to that standard. The days of doing the Web on the cheap with a couple smart young Web geeks in the corner is gone. Get a real manager to run the Web Division, fund the Web program, staff your Web team properly, and product manage your Web properties.

4. Understand what you’re getting for your efforts. Organizations need to get a solid return on investment for their efforts. The return need not be monetary but it ought to be appropriate to tactics derived from the strategic organizational objective. The most effective way to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of what you are doing on the Web is to measure the efficiency of your development process and technical delivery systems, and measure the satisfaction of your customers and users. Then determine your level of success, monetary or soft based on numbers, not coolness of the final product. If it’s not hitting the target, change.

I would say if you’ve got these 4 basics well in hand then you can afford to get starry eye’d about Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. If not, don’t expose yourself to the collaboration game. You're not likely to win. The price is too high. Go back to the fundamentals.