Weebiz: Opening Up Business Networks and Innovation?

sponsor_weebiz_logo ReadWriteWeb pointed to a very interesting new tool on the web: Weebiz, social networking for companies.
Weebiz wants to be a network of companies, not people. This is fascinating. As a company it can be very insightful to have an overview of your company network. Who are your suppliers, your partners, etc.? When you have your company network it is very interesting to see how this relates to company networks in other industries, of your competitors, etc.
But I'm wondering: Isn't a company network confidential information? Of course everyone can map a company's network to some extent. But not in great detail. And lots of companies would like to keep it that way, I think.
Or am I wrong? I could be wrong if the trend to open up your business, apply open innovation and use mass-collaboration (such as with Innocentive), will truly be the business model of the future, as BusinessWeek recently reported again (- and I believe it will be). Then joining something like Weebiz could be essential to your business! And I could also be wrong if customers, who already are demanding more openness and transparency, will demand companies to show who's in their network. In this way they can decide not to buy your product, not because your company is evil, but because your supplier, for instance, is.
By the way, maybe LinkedIn can also be used to generate company networks. You don't get the formal network of the company. But you definitely get the informal one. The one that runs through personal contacts!
What do you think? Will companies join Weebiz? And is a company's network highly confidential? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
---
If You Read This and Like It, Tweet This to your Followers:
Opening Up Business Networks and Innovation? http://twurl.nl/c6ttt5

Popular posts

Keep the Intranet Small

Image
This tweet by Jonathan Phillips ( @digitaljonathan ) triggered to finalize this post, that's been burning in my draft box. I've always been intrigued by how unsuccessful many intranets are. And there are all kinds of good reasons for intranet failure. One of the things that is hardly ever mentioned is: Shouldn't the intranet be smaller? Usually intranets are huge. Lots and lots of pages with lots and lots of content. With complex navigation. The intranet  evaluation surveys almost always show employees only use the news page and people finder. But still we build and maintain nice big intranets. Not only stats point to smaller intranets. There are others reasons as well. I came up with a few. If you have more, just leave a comment. Here's my list: -            user requirements: users don't require large intranet -            search/navigation: searching and navigating a small ...
Read more

Enterprise 2.0 Research

Image
There's not too much fundamental research on Enterprise 2.0. Deloitte recently published interesting research done on enterprise 2.0 implementations and their return-on-investment. In the EU research has also done as well. Study is being done for the European Commission and it was carried out by Tech4i2, IDC and Headshift. What was the goal of the study? Goals of the study To provide a clear definition of Enterprise 2.0 is, describe the market and the positioning of EU industry, also in comparison with US and Asia; To analyze the take-up of Enterprise 2.0, the organizational requirements, and the role on the transition to a knowledge based low-carbon economy; To collect evidence on its macro-economic impact, as a market opportunity for the European Software industry and as a productivity tool for European business; To identify and analyse both the direct and contextual challenges, including the need for Next Generation Access and the legal barriers; To analyse an...
Read more

Innovation in Turbulent Times

Image
I love reading articles about innovation. And every now and then you read one that is very interesting. "Innovation in Turbulent Times" by Rigby, Gruver, Allen (in HBR, June 2009) is one of them. This article takes fashion companies as an example for continuous, year-by-year innovation. And how successful fashion companies are usually led by two people: a left-brainer and a right-brainer. "If you don't have highly creative people in positions of real authority, you won't get innovation. Most companies in other industries ignore this lesson." They extend this to show that successful non-fashion companies have the same kind of leadership. And this kind of leadership is usually also characterized by a long-term relationship. I think this concept can also be extended to teams and projects as well. More often than not, people are good at one or the other: thinking up great concepts or ideas, or, making them. In teams and projects we can learn from this as...
Read more