Or not — I think it will depend on whether these tools are the appropriate instrument to use to close specific gaps in performance.

With all the control organizations like to have with things on their networks and the variety of technologies and accessibility issues organizations have, I am starting to wonder if there is instead a growing divide between the people who are fostering new technologies and those who just want to get the job done.

I have found the status quo to be unbearably powerful, and making a business case to try something new when “what we have already works,” especially given the lack of evidence that newer Web 2.0 applications produce any measurable ROI, then they tend to go into more cutting-edge workplaces, but are not often ready for prime-time, so to speak.

Of course, here we are discussing this on a blog via RSS feeds. Go figure . . .

If so, who is responsible for purchasing the hardware, software, and bandwidth to host the content? Who pays to support the systems the new content lives on, and to manage the resources managing the physical equipment required? Does it (must it) remain behind the firewall? If so, who is responsible for maintaining the security of that information?

And how does it fit into a systematic learning program? If it is an important way of learning, how do we encourage others to create the content? Do people who have the knowledge in their head need some help learning how to create the content that needs to be shared?

Lots of questions, all of which have answers that involve a real world cost.

One of the things that’s hard to estimate in advance is the value of user-generated content. The old Web 1.0 system had none. The longer your web 2.0 system runs, the more value it accumulates through contributions from its users. In fact, the users will push you into areas you had thought too difficult (i.e. requiring you to train the trainers before it can be done.)

You’ve seen how easy it is for people to create useful videos on the company’s social networking site, despite the fact that the initial vision for the site didn’t really embrace video.

It’s probably useful to think of the initial expenditure as being startup capital for the whole community, rather than the cost of doing business for the corporate training department.