Archive for December 2007
The old saw suggests that if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. We’re seeing a lot of that in the social software space.
Apparently, now that every corporate executive has a kid on Facebook, more and more companies in the Web2.0, social software space feel the need to answer “but does it have Facebook-like capability?” with yes.
The thing is, people are still really unclear on which tasks Facebook is well suited for, and which are better handled by different tools.
The latest entry in this sweepstakes is WorkBook: A Secure Corporate Overlay for Facebook
Worklight offers several scenarios which illustrate why they think it would be handy to have Facebook capability in a corporate secured environment. Let’s look at these:
Francesca interacts securely with colleagues at remote offices, taking advantage of Facebook’s social networking tools (e.g. send birthday greetings, share your status, send requests, etc.)
Um, ok. Let’s take these one at a time:
- Send birthday greetings — Birthday greetings sent to a Facebook page will only be received if the person checks their Facebook page. It’s still customary in most cultures to send such greetings to a person where they are. And while college students may spend a lot of time on Facebook, working people are likely doing their work, and probably more reachable via phone or email.
- Share your status – to see someone’s status, it’s necessary to check their Facebook page. IM clients are MUCH more convenient for this purpose. With one glance, I can look at my MSN messenger window and see that my boss is on the phone, my colleague is heads-down pumping out a project report, and the sales guy is out on a call.
- Send requests – usually, people need a way to store and organize the requests they receive. Email allows people to file requests atomically. Project discussion rooms allow the posting of requests in the space where the project is being tracked, and allow everyone else on the project to see who is asking whom for what. But requests sent to a Facebook page are not manipulable there. They will likely have to be copied somewhere else for tracking. Who needs that?
Marisa, a civil engineer based in London, uses Facebook/WorkBook to find corporate colleagues in Asia and North America who have already solved a structural challenge she has just been assigned.
- This is a job for an expert locator. While Facebook offers detailed profiling, and presumably Workbook adds to the mix by adding some corporate-related fields, it’s not at all clear how one makes a collection of profiles into an expert locator without developing some shared taxonomy. Where in your facebook page are you going to mention the list of structural challenges you’ve solved? How is someone going to find that in a search?
Joe, a field rep in Omaha, posts a link to an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal, so that his peers in other regions can use the information in sales presentations.
- If this is a resource for sharing with a group of folks, wouldn’t it make more sense to share that link in a full featured resource library? Say, one which is organized by topic? How are people going to know this resource exists? I’m more likely to subscribe to the “sales related articles” folder if I want that sort of information than I am to Joe’s page.
Rajiv, an Accounts Receivables manager, shares an unpaid invoice record with the appropriate sales manager.
- Where? On Rajiv’s page? On the sales manager’s page? Wouldn’t this be better handled in a space dedicated to stuff about the client?
Deborah changes her work-related to status to “working on next year’s budget”
- I won’t know this, though, unless I check her page. If she updates her message on IM though, it’ll be displayed in a nice little window which I keep open on my desktop at all times.
Corporate management announces a recent large deal to all employees and posts a new HR policy to European employees.
- Where? In an all-hands group and an HR Group? How will people know that new information is on these pages? Through a blizzard of email notifications? If so, why not just send out the text in an email and be done with it?
The thing is, Facebook and similar applications presume that people and their properties are the center of attention. This is quite true in the social world – we make our friends and maintain our friendships based on who they are and what they are thinking about and what they are interested in.
In the work world, personal relationships do matter a great deal. Knowing something about a person’s personal life and sharing those personal bonds builds trust. Sharing professional experiences builds regard. But being effective at work requires putting THE WORK at the center of focus, and making relationships around getting the work done. I don’t want to have to check individual pages for each of my team members to know how the XYZ project is progressing. I want to go to a space where all the XYZ stuff is being discussed, where documents relating to XYZ are being worked on and stored I want that space to be flexible. I want to be able to tell at a glance what I’ve already read there and what is new.
I use a wide range of tools to get my work done each day. I appreciate the need to bring together a range of functionality under a single interface. I’m excited by the approaches people are coming up with to try to do this. But I’m darned sure that Facebook is not going to be the Swiss army knife we’re all dreaming of. It’s just not sufficiently work-centered!
n his October report for the Gartner group, Magic Quadrant for Team Collaboration and Social Software, 2007, Nikos Drakos does a compelling look at the online collaboration, er, social software space.
Drakos’ opening line “The collaboration support market is being revitalized, with buyers and sellers looking to add social interaction in the context of broad collaboration support.” is indeed what we’re seeing here at Q2. The new awareness of social aspects to enterprise knowledge sharing tools usually manifests in sales calls in the form of a comment like “yeah, this is pretty much what we need, but do you have ‘facebook-type’ functionality?”
Drako’s analysis reflects this state of affairs. He observes “Buyers in the collaboration support market are looking for persistent virtual environments where participants can create, organize and share information, as well as interact with each other.” His “low” baseline for inclusion are features we’ve had for years in our platform:
- membership management
- access controls
- user profiles
- shared workspaces
- document sharing
- discussion forums
He adds to it his list of “High Expectations of Additional Optional Functionality” and indicates that the ability to do these things will gradually be added to baseline expectations.
- calendar integration
- task allocation
- task tracking
- basic project management
- social tags
- social bookmarks,
- social network analysis
- social network visualization
- content feeds
- people search (expertise location),
- team decision support (voting, sorting, ranking, scenario planning and categorizing)
- content rating
- reputation management
I’d call the first few items on that wish-list the “project management toolkit”. Sites like Basecamp have been in that space for a while. The thing is, project management tends to have some very organizationally specific cultural requirements, and it may be a while before the online tools develop the sophistication of the offline ones sufficiently for established project management cultures to become comfortable using them. At Q2, for example, we use a combination of Microsoft Project, some software tools of our own design, and discussion forums for project management. When we’re doing joint projects with other orgs, we have a tendency to force the issue of using online discussion space for a tool, and we’ve noticed that people we’ve dragged along on that path eventually are converted!
Wikis, of course, are a mechanism to facilitate group document generation, and are, I believe, one of those things that are shortly going to disappear from the conversation just as word-processing software has, because their essential utility will make them ubiquitous. Some day soon, anyone who has to work with documents will know what eventually wins out as the standard wiki the way we all now know Word. So yeah, if you are in the online collaboration space, and you don’t have a wiki, you are probably missing some essential functionality.
The jury is still out on the extent to which blogs will become a must-have in the enterprise social software sphere. We have pretty robust blogging capability in our software, enabling our customers to configure blogs for internal or public consumption. But we aren’t seeing it utilized much at all. People seem to experiment with blogging for a while and then decide that other tasks on their list are more critical for the advancement of their careers and their organizations. Or, if they are already engaged in blogging from a public site, they just leave their blog in the platform they already understand and where their public knows where to find them. It may be that being able to link out to blogs will be more important in the enterprise arena than being able to generate them—it will be interesting to see.
Which brings us to the newly-christened “social” stuff. An important question underlying this functionality for the enterprise is “how much is lost if we limit our universe to our own organization?” Tagging, rating, and reviewing internal proprietary content is pretty obviously a job for software internal to the enterprise. Finding people internal to the enterprise who have experience with a given client. project, or skill-set is also well-suited to a platform within the firewall. But what about those public spaces? How much is it worth to an organization to have its people “out there” on del.icio.us, on Linked-in and Facebook, sharing their expertise and opinion of publicly available resources? When employees are searching for new information, to what extent should they depend on internal tools, and when is it important to venture out? To the extent that they venture out and find things of value, how should those things be brought “in” so that others in the organization can benefit? In short, when is a filtered network optimal, and when is an unfiltered network the place to go?
We’re thinking about these questions, and trying to strike a balance, creating a tool which fosters the creation and nurture of the internal social network, while making it easy to bring in the best resources from outside. It’s sort of in our blood – we were around when discussion forums evolved from BBS and Usenet to the Web. (I still get a chill when I think about how cool it was the first time I could post a relevant URL to a discussion forum!) I believe that the acceleration of global interconnectedness will mean that even for the largest organizations, it will be in discussing information streaming in from outside, comparing it to internal intelligence, and constructing meaning with other knowledgeable people that strategic advantage is attained.