Euan Semple's blog flashed up on my RSS with "Ignore Gartner".  Having had a long relationship with Gartner, as a client and user, I could think of many an occasion in the past where Gartner reports would effectively kick a big hole in a thought process, only to find, with passage of time, that they missed the obvious and life went on as we always felt it would.  So I looked at Euan's blog, following the link to the article that he was referring to and YUP, agreed 100% with the sentiment of the blog - Ignore Gartner in reference to them painting "social networking as a white elephant."

The article from Silicon was making reference to a recent Gartner thought piece, making you think that Gartner's position was simply that social computing is crap and has no value for a clutch of reasons.  Didn't sound like the Gartner I used to know.  They may get things wrong on occasion (they get more right by the way), but they generally review their own statement critically and fairly.  

A bit of digging and the article in questions was found and guess what.  It's not the hellfire and brimstone that the Silicon article will have you believe.  The points Gartner make seem to be to be that Social Computing, like any application set, may be hampered in delivering value if the "human" element is ignore.  The points are clear and frankly pretty bloody obvious, especially if you are used to deploying an application and trying to effect behavioural change.

1) On intellectual property - the point Gartner makes is that people recognise that information is important for their own person progression (Duh!) - good ol' Knowledge is [some sort of] power. Just as with CRM systems where sales people keep the majority of the network information "private", so Gartner argues that corporate people will keep their profile details private...Well yes, if you have not asked the sensible question up front -"what do I want this social computing platform to do for my business." Go into IBM and try and tell them that the profiling tool on Blue Pages is not highly prized as a business enabling tool. The point is, don't expect the social platform to carry the same content as Facebook. As Gartner says, 12 to 18 months from now, the business equivalent of today's Facebook apps will be with us... (if they are not here already)

2) The Silicon article says that social computing from corporate vendors will fail because of "people's preference for using existing non-professional external networks". We yes who is going to deny that most people will use Facebook in the future for exactly the same reason they are using it today...as a very efficient way to keep in touch will others. So if you buy a corporate Facebook equivalent for the sole purpose of allowing your staff to "stay in touch", then you really are not thinking very creatively. Thinking more creatively, what value is it to a corporate if its staff can help from other with expert knowledge immediately. Not only find them, but learn about why they are the right ones to help. Then see who is available straight away and know the best method to reach them. What then if you can immediately see who they know and work with and understand all that links them to the organisation. Come on! Reading the report closely it seems to me the point Gartner is making is that workers won't accept the limitation of a corporate social networking tool that does not allow them the ability to "socialise" outside the corporate firewall. ABSOLUTELY RIGHT...that's why we have Facebook et al now and the Corporation must ask itself what problem a social platform is solving for itself. Trovus now has a library of reasons, all very specific to each company.

By the way, what is not stated is that people will keep using Facebook and Corporates will have to define policies around usage or adapt to accommodate the platform.  The concept is not going away - ITS CONNECTIVITY, ITS WHAT THE INTERNET FACILITATES AND WHAT HUMANS DO.

3) The final point Gartner makes I accept rings true. They say that there is currently limited evidence that "social" elements of Facebook activity have yet to definitively show business value. This is where Jon Mell's comment on "Social Computing is probably the wrong term in a business context" is absolutely spot on. Its about looking at the social platforms of Facebook and looking for the business issues they address. The adaptation may simply be using the same application set, and just removing the word social from the name...Would Connections Computing be better?

The workplace is a place of social interaction and few would question the value of a workforce that cooperates productively due to a strong undercurrent of "social wellbeing" (ie people generally getting on)  We see the connectivity elements of social platforms as holding keys to unlocking value for business.  One CEO of a very large company said to me recently "Ed the phone is and will remain the main platform of business communication...(maybe!! Won't stick my neck out on that sort of prediction) but I can see real value in my staff, knowing about each other all over the world - ONLY DON'T CALL IT SOCIAL NETWORKING..."

Don't fully ignore Gartner on this, just make sure that if you are going to summarise their thought pieces that you do it in a fair and balanced manner.  That means Euan and the like won't have to pillory them.

Comments

There are currently 3 comments about this blog.

Ed Charvet, 6 months ago

Thanks James. I guess we are in the camp of thinking that calling anything a white elephant is a bit of a dangerous thing...reckon the Dome seems to have found its thing now.

james governor, 6 months ago

good stuff. when i read the headline, i had to dig a little deeper to get the point. that said - I suspect the phrase White Elephant was used to elicit a response... it worked

Euan, 6 months ago

Updated my post

Leave a Reply