IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aes/infoec/v17y2013i3p36-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Conceptual Model to Implement an Interactive and Collaborative Enterprise 2.0

Author

Listed:
  • Domenico CONSOLI

Abstract

To implement an interactive and collaborative Enterprise 2.0 it is important to have, inside the company, organizational and technological preconditions. In this model of advanced enterprise, internal workers must collaborate among themselves to communicate with all external subjects of the supply chain for achieving business goals. The implementation process is a critical and complex procedure that requires a strategic plan in the introduction and adoption of the innovation. In this paper the single actions to follow, for the implementation of the new model of business, with all determinant factors and variables, are described.

Suggested Citation

  • Domenico CONSOLI, 2013. "A Conceptual Model to Implement an Interactive and Collaborative Enterprise 2.0," Informatica Economica, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 17(3), pages 36-48.
    • Handle: RePEc:aes:infoec:v:17:y:2013:i:3:p:36-48
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://revistaie.ase.ro/content/67/04%20-%20Consoli.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Domenico CONSOLI, 2012. "A Collaborative Platform to Support the Enterprise 2.0 in Active Interactions with Customers," Informatica Economica, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 16(3), pages 37-49.
    2. Adler, Ralph W., 2000. "Strategic investment decision appraisal techniques: The old and the new," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 15-22.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olbrich Michael & Quill Tobias & J. Rapp David, 2015. "Business Valuation Inspired by the Austrian School," Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-43, January.
    2. Domenico CONSOLI, 2017. "The Use of Social Media and E-Commerce: a Winning Strategy for Small Businesses," North Economic Review, Technical University of Cluj Napoca, Department of Economics and Physics, vol. 1(1), pages 109-119, October.
    3. Alkaraan, Fadi & Northcott, Deryl, 2006. "Strategic capital investment decision-making: A role for emergent analysis tools?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 149-173.
    4. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3884 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. DAMBRIN, Claire & PEZET, Anne, 2007. "Text and artefacts for creating a "World of Investment Decision-Making" : an empirical study into investment procedures," HEC Research Papers Series 865, HEC Paris.
    6. Akalu, M.M. & Turner, J.R., 2002. "Investment Appraisal Process in the Banking & Finance Industry," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002-17-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    7. Ralph Adler, 2006. "Why DCF capital budgeting is bad for business and why business schools should stop teaching it," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 3-10.
    8. Akalu, M.M. & Turner, J.R., 2002. "Adding Shareholder Value through Project Performance Measurement, Monitoring & Control," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002-38-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    9. Pivorienė Agnė, 2017. "Real Options and Discounted Cash Flow Analysis to Assess Strategic Investment Projects," Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 30(1), pages 91-101, April.
    10. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2769 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Hardaker, Ashley, 2018. "Is forestry really more profitable than upland farming? A historic and present day farm level economic comparison of upland sheep farming and forestry in the UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 98-120.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aes:infoec:v:17:y:2013:i:3:p:36-48. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Paul Pocatilu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aseeero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.