{"id":175,"date":"2008-05-15T18:04:38","date_gmt":"2008-05-16T02:04:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/05\/15\/big-or-small\/"},"modified":"2008-05-15T18:25:41","modified_gmt":"2008-05-16T02:25:41","slug":"big-or-small","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/05\/15\/big-or-small\/","title":{"rendered":"Big or small"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"dice\" by <\/em><\/span>ThunderChild the Magnificent<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Social Software: Freestanding or Layered?<\/a>:
\n[Via A Journey In Social Media<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Had an interesting phone interview the other day, and we got into the topic above, which I found interesting.<\/p>\n

We both agreed that we were going to see far more social software in the enterprise in the coming years.\u00a0 The question was more about architecture — would these software packages be purchased and deployed as free-standing entities, or would they be thought more in terms of a “layer” over something else already in the enterprise.<\/p>\n

And, if you’re aspiring to be a social media proficiency practitioner (as I am) — or a vendor that’s selling to people like me<\/em> — the answer might matter to you.<\/p>\n

Enterprise Buying Patterns<\/strong><\/p>\n

If you listen to software vendors who are trying to sell in the enterprise, they’ll usually make it sound like all sorts of large, important companies are buying their software.<\/p>\n

However, if you dig down a bit, the truth is more usually that some group or another within that large organization made a purchasing decision. It wasn’t what I’d call a corporate decision.<\/p>\n

As an example, let’s take SAP — a large, enterprise ERP platform.\u00a0 No single group or department within a corporation will go out and deploy SAP — it just doesn’t make sense.\u00a0 100% of their customers are probably “corporate decisions” rather than “group decisions” within a large company.<\/p>\n

To take the opposite to an extreme, I happen to use SanDisk USB memory sticks.\u00a0 Does that mean that EMC Corporation – a Fortune 500 company!!<\/em> — uses SanDisk USB memory sticks?\u00a0 Technically yes, but I think you get my point.<\/p>\n

Why does this matter for social software?<\/p>\n

Because I think there’s a big difference between some engineering group putting in a wiki for their team, and a large corporation making a strategic decision for all their employees.\u00a0 Trust me, the buying criteria will be very, very different.<\/p>\n

If I’m selling to a small group, I’d want an offering that’s focused on price, ease of installation, price, ease of management, price — and maybe price.<\/p>\n

If I’m selling to a large enterprise, though, the list is very different.\u00a0 If I’m a large enterprise, I’ve already made many, many investments in existing infrastructure software.I want my new social software to work with everything I have — not as another free-standing entity, but as a “layer”.<\/p>\n

And I’ll pay extra for that capability<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[More<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

An interesting discussion of the needs of a large company vs. a small company. The large company wants something that will act as a social layer over what it already has. It will not want to reinvest in calendaring, directories, etc.<\/em>To a certain extent, this is software lock-in. The choices of the company are limited by what others have decided to add on to previously purchased software. It is certainly a way to go but will reduce the types of tools the users can access.<\/em><\/p>\n

As an example, if a company waits until Microsoft provides a social layer over Outlook, it could be a while. Even if a third company provided this solution, its updates may not be timely, hurting the company’s competitiveness against companies that can utilize new software more rapidly. They are tied to the develop cycle of the vendor, not the technology.<\/em><\/p>\n

Web 2.0 technologies can change very fast. Twitter was hardly anywhere 6 months ago. Now it is being used by millions. So there is a trap for large organizations, especially ones on the innovation train.<\/em><\/p>\n

Also, the tools need to meet the needs of the users to be successful. <\/em><\/p>\n

That is one thing not addressed in the post. People will really only take advantage of these tools if it makes their work flow easier. A group at the company may need and utilize Web 2.0 tools in a very different fashion than others in the company. How does the company deal with this?<\/em><\/p>\n

Trying to use a tool that may be ‘best’ for the needs of HR may not mean Research is happy. The best tools may be the ones that resemble Swiss Army knives, with multiple attachments, than simply a layer over Outlook. They may need to be almost infinitely customizable. <\/em><\/p>\n

I do agree that the user needs to have a single point of entry to the social web. But there has to be a recognition that new tools are being developed and that they may have to be implemented someday. A real worry should be that a large enterprise may not be as nimble with the successful recognition of vital new tools. This flattens the playing field with those companies that can utilize the new tools.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Technorati Tags: Knowledge Creation<\/a>, Social media<\/a>, Web 2.0<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by ThunderChild the Magnificent Social Software: Freestanding or Layered?: [Via A Journey In Social Media] Had an interesting phone interview the other day, and we got into the topic above, which I found interesting. We both agreed that we were going to see far more social software in the enterprise in the coming years.\u00a0 The … Continue reading Big or small<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false},"categories":[10,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-175","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-knowledge-creation","category-web-20"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pe2yp-2P","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":75,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/03\/27\/some-important-ideas\/","url_meta":{"origin":175,"position":0},"title":"Some important ideas","date":"March 27, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"by kevindooley Can Software Make You Smarter?: [Via A Journey In Social Media] No, but I think it can make you more successful. Yesterday, I was talking to our HR group -- an \"all-hands\" type of thing -- and I wandered into a few interesting areas that I thought important.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "General"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":348,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/08\/28\/a-future-position\/","url_meta":{"origin":175,"position":1},"title":"A future position?","date":"August 28, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Workflow- Social Media for Marketers: [Via chrisbrogan.com] What does a day in the life of a social media marketer look like? I'm not a marketer, so if I get some of your terms wrong, forgive me. I thought maybe we could do a walkthrough of a fictitious social media marketer,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Web 2.0"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":345,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/08\/27\/friendfeed-for-business\/","url_meta":{"origin":175,"position":2},"title":"Friendfeed for business","date":"August 27, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"How to Use Friendfeed as a Collaborative Business Tool: [Via chrisbrogan.com] The social media aggregation software, Friendfeed has much more value than one might originally think. The tool lets you add several disparate parts of your social web use into one spot (it collects your blog, your Flickr account, your\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Web 2.0"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":77,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/04\/03\/justifying-social-software\/","url_meta":{"origin":175,"position":3},"title":"Justifying Social Software","date":"April 3, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"by NASA \/Hubble Heritage Team Justifying Social Software: [Via A Journey In Social Media] It's true that most organizations won't move forward with significant investments without some sort of justification. And it's also true that the category of \"productivity software\" is perhaps the most difficult thing to justify. So, I\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Knowledge Creation"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/04\/galaxy-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":188,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/05\/20\/social-media-sites-for-scientists\/","url_meta":{"origin":175,"position":4},"title":"Social media sites for scientists","date":"May 20, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"myScience: \u201csocial software\u201d for scientists: [Via O'Really? at Duncan.Hull.name] With apologies to Jonathan Swift: \u201cGreat sites have little sites upon their back to bite \u2018em And little sites have lesser sites, and so ad infinitum\u2026\u201d So what happened was, Carole Goble asked on the myExperiment mailing list, \u201cis there a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Knowledge Creation"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/farm1.static.flickr.com\/192\/512341455_0493eeb389_m.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2290,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2015\/12\/15\/moving-adobe-into-the-special-category\/","url_meta":{"origin":175,"position":5},"title":"Moving Adobe into the Special category","date":"December 15, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Adobe\u2019s Record Revenue Proves Successful Business Transformation Is Possible [Via Daring Fireball] Ron Miller, writing for TechCrunch: As we watch organizations like IBM, HP and EMC struggle to transform, Adobe is an interesting contrasting case. It went from selling boxed software to a cloud subscription model in shorter order, and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "21st Century Company"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/photoshop.001.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=175"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}