Watched parts of this last night.  Frontline has a new program called "Growing Up Online."  You should watch it (which you can do via the site…very cool).

It reinforces many things I have picked up from previous research into Generation Y and their communication habits.  What struck me most is right at the end, one of the recently graduated high school seniors talks about the way he needs to unplug for bit because it is too much to deal with.  Wow.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future.  Is it possible that we will exhaust our on-line preoccupation?  I now rarely use IM, email is broken for sure, and text messaging works best for close contacts. 

The news (via The Guardian) that CapGemini is making Google Apps part of its solution set is making the rounds today and getting some good coverage including here and here. 

This statement by Steve Jones of CapGemini is a bit of bunk especially considering the long availability of productivity products like OpenOffice but I’ll give him creative credit for the "haves and have nots" characterization around software access in the enterprise – I have been made aware of the "two americas" but was not aware of the "two enteprises."

"Up to now, says Jones, licensing and data-storage costs have prohibited these "disenfranchised employees" from being given access to Office-style apps."

Much of the talking points on the annoucement seem to be focused on moving from personal productivity to team productivity with the power of the internet.  Wow…that’s a new concept.

"If you look at the traditional desktop it is very focused on personal productivity," said Robert Whiteside, Google enterprise manager, UK and Ireland. "What Google Apps brings is team productivity."

All in all this is good news for Google and its enterprise biz but hardly the death knell for Microsoft or IBM/Lotus.

Thank you TA McCann and Brad Feld for being on that very short list and helping me experiment with Facebook.  There has been a bit of on-line debate about Facebook vs. LinkedIn so thought I would add my two cents. 

I think this comes down to personal utility. 

LinkedIn provides me utility because it is a dynamic but passive way to stay connected AND because my professional/personal contacts utilize the service.  I’m not sure I would pay for LinkedIn although the ability to keep track of the folks outside my 15 or so most active contacts is appealing and updates are driven by the contacts themselves not by me (versus me managing Outlook Contacts).  In order to be included in my network, I need to know you, have met you, or at least have something in common (Arthur Andersen alum, etc.). To me it is a "I know where to find you if I need you" solution and a way to keep tabs on folks as they move from project to project.

Facebook is also dynamic but requires active participation AND my professional/personal contacts DO NOT utilize the service.  Admittedly, I have not really attempted to develop more connections on Facebook and signed up more out of curiosity than anything else.  The same can be said for participation in MySpace, Orkut, etc. where I may be a registered user but I do not actively use the service.  Besides, a system that asks your relationship status before anything else is not really where I am in my life.  Could Facebook do what LinkedIn does for me? Yes.  Is there a compelling reason to change?  No, but I am open-minded and curious if its personal utility will increase as adoption continues.

Here’s a couple good posts from Mike Feinstein including this one on being a social networking stowaway which outlines several services and his use of them.  Also check this one on business social networking. 

On a side note, I am still tinkering with Twitter and am finding it a reasonable way to update my whereabouts for the day rather than sending out a blast email.  Surely there are other use cases for it but broadcasting my location/availability is one that fits my current needs.

Updated:  I was remiss for not linking to this NY Times piece on the question of LinkedIn (via Barry Briggs)

This story from Wired covers a nifty new tool called Wikipedia Scanner that lets you see who (what IP address) has been editing Wikipedia entries although it is somewhat old news as the examples given are all pre-2006. 

I suppose there are two ways to look at this: 

1. Changes like those made by Diebold & Wal-Mart editing critical comments are not in the "spirit" of a "collaborative" effort like Wikipedia or as an entry stated  – are "vandalism."
2. Because this is a definition based on the collaborative input of the community, then everyone in the community is understood to be a participant with the "facts" rising to the top after numerous public iterations.

Now, I often reference Wikipedia definitions here because I like the fact that they are dynamic and can be a bit more colorful than Merriam-Webster.  However caveat emptor because anybody can edit an entry which again is the unique thing about this social dictionary. 

One person’s fact could be another person’s fiction.

Bottom line – this is a place people go for information and companies/organizations want to make sure their brands are presented in the best light possible.  This should not be a surprise to anyone and is hardly scandalous.

The latest to join?  Accounting firm KPMG.  This is a pretty decent podcast about both the benefits and challenges that new types of collaboration could bring to the enterprise (via Scott Gavin).  Keep an eye out for the coming rationalization process where these tools will meet enterprise-centric drivers like security, access controls, litigation, and compliance.  Here’s a link to the site focused on the "corporate use of social networking and collaborative software tools."

Download 01_0607_Enterprise20.mp3

One of the more memorable quotes from the Enterprise 2.0 conference.  I attended a couple of the speaking sessions and the one Wednesday moderated by Wikinomics author Don Tapscott was pretty good.  This conference spent its time focusing on ways to collaborate other than email. 

Although a really compelling business case for a new collaboration tool remains elusive (yes, I know, "productivity" but that is darn hard to build a direct ROI around and even harder to pry IT dollars for), there are lots of alternatives floating around out there.  One of the more compelling is the type of thing Socialtext is doing (and even Wetpaint locally in Seattle to a degree) – putting wikis in the hands of business users.  Long the domain of techies as that is how I first participated in one when one of the engineers graciously invited the "marketing guy" to the party (thanks Mitchell).  Putting a non-tech user front end on them and making them easier to use for average folks shows promise, but you are still trying to change people’s habits.  Daunting for sure.

It is always fun to think forward and there are no shortage of great ideas, compelling technologies, and really smart people coming at this problem/opportunity.  Here at MessageGate we are in the weeds of corporate email which is what people are using now for these interactions and will be for some time (end-user habits die hard…and with a fair share of bloodshed).

On the panel Wednesday was Joe Schueller from Procter & Gamble – they are doing some really innovative things around building a community to drive product innovation.  More on this session here, here, and here.

Joe is the one that said this and warned the audience to not fight this battle first because "people have a personal relationship with their email" and if you try to take it from them you will be viewed with disdain.  His advice is to start small with a pilot group (like IT) who can champion the benefits of a new way to interact and measure them (refer to point above about ROI & spend).

So, what to do about email?  How do you actively control/manage something people view personally?  Very carefully.  This is why we advocate a minimum threshold approach.  Forget about technology/software out of the gate, do an audit whether you use MessageGate or somebody else – you need to do one.  This will show you the places where you can think about applying some of these new technologies or show you where your investment in them is not paying off.

As a side note, all the sessions are available via video here.