Interesting post found via the Communities and Networks Connection - The Future of Collaborative Networks by Aaron Fulkerson, CEO of MindTouch.
Aaron's main point is that enterprise 2.0 software or enterprise social software should not focus on:
social networks or social software, which is focused entirely on enabling conversations
Instead, Aaron points to what he calls Collaborative networks:
Rather than focusing on socialization, one to one interactions and individual enrichment, businesses must be concerned with creating an information fabric within their organizations. This information fabric is a federation of content from the multiplicity of data and application silos utilized on a daily basis; such as, ERP, CRM, file servers, email, databases, web-services infrastructures, etc. When you make this information fabric easy to edit between groups of individuals in a dynamic, secure, governed and real-time manner, it creates a Collaborative Network.
Collaborative Networks are focused on groups accessing and organizing data into actionable formats that enable decision making, collaboration and reuse.
| Social Networks' Characteristics | Collaborative Networks' Characteristics |
| One to one | Group to group |
| Social interaction centered | Objective and content centered |
| Achieving personal objectives | Achieving group objectives |
| Individual enrichment | Operational excellence |
| Results immeasurable | Results measurable |
While I agree that making information that is currently in application silos available is really important, I feel like Aaron has missed two really important issues:
- Concept work is far too varied and complex for anyone to continually try it on their own. Concept workers need access to the information in silos, but the answers are not found there. Instead, they need to be able to quickly find expertise inside and outside the organization.
- Adoption starts based on individual value. See Enterprise 2.0 - What's the PU? & Web 2.0 Adoption in the Enterprise - It's Personal. In fact, studies of technology adoption for many years have come back to:
Adoption Rate = Perceived Usefulness (PU) * Perceive Ease of Use (PEOU)
Aaron may not have meant this, but he seems to suggest starting with a focus on group value, achieving group objectives. I'm sure some people will buy into that, but I believe it's a much easier sell if you first focus on individual value.
1 comment:
Tony,
I concur with your observation.
Although it is ideal for corporate sponsorship to organize and structure networks, this is always an uphill battle. The more organic development would be that people find the answers when they need it might it from an individual or database. However, the productive networks are those that overlap corporate needs and individual needs.
Conversation is the DNA of networks; not the network. The network and data are only facilities to promote meaningful conversations.
The “productive instances”* (for corporate sponsorships) do occur when conversations meet business needs. Productive instances are only by products of thousand folds of one-on-one conversations (like Tweets) between people and groups. We would NOT realize those “productive instances” if we only aim for them; natural human filtering process.
I may be wrong, but why is there a tendency to relegate conversations as a consequence rather than the goal of networks?
Ray
*Productive instances – I just coined this to express a view. Others’ might own this phrase. Are there discussions on productive instances elsewhere?
Post a Comment