Which do you choose?
Monday: July 2, 2007 7:37 AM
So you’re running the corporate Collaborative or Social Software implementation and you have to make a decision. Ok, it’s a hypothetical decision but none the less. You can add a high profile Intranet as a customer or 100 Collaborative spaces; which do you choose?
The high profile Intranet will replace the traditional HTML or Active Server Page site with a collaborative site that has the look and feel of the traditional Intranet. The collaborative options can either be hidden in the background or deliver new features that were not included in the original requirements. This will provide a showcase for transformation into the world of Enterprise 2.0.
The second option is adding 100 collaborative environments where teams can get together from all across the company. These sites will have limited access to the designated team members and provide a robust set of features like document libraries, wikis, and customized lists which will enable communities and collaboration to emerge.
The decision gets more confusing when you think about it from a consumer versus producer point of view. The first option adds very few producers of content while the second produces 400-500 contributors with an equal number of consumers. However, the Intranet solution will add 5,000 consumers to the environment. Which do you choose? Should you add the option that will increase your usage or the option that will increase your content?
The content versus usage debate is the same as the Chicken and the Egg argument. When you have large amounts of content usage will emerge and when you have a high degree of usage content will emerge. That being said, take the 100 collaborative sites which will add the content at the opportunity cost of the usage put forth by the Intranet. More importantly, the Intranet solution merely fools people in thinking that that you are collaborating while the second one actually alters the behavior of the individuals. I’ll take the short term pain for the long term payoff of the 100 collaborative sites.
So you’re running the corporate Collaborative or Social Software implementation and you have to make a decision. Ok, it’s a hypothetical decision but none the less. You can add a high profile Intranet as a customer or 100 Collaborative spaces; which do you choose?
The high profile Intranet will replace the traditional HTML or Active Server Page site with a collaborative site that has the look and feel of the traditional Intranet. The collaborative options can either be hidden in the background or deliver new features that were not included in the original requirements. This will provide a showcase for transformation into the world of Enterprise 2.0.
The second option is adding 100 collaborative environments where teams can get together from all across the company. These sites will have limited access to the designated team members and provide a robust set of features like document libraries, wikis, and customized lists which will enable communities and collaboration to emerge.
The decision gets more confusing when you think about it from a consumer versus producer point of view. The first option adds very few producers of content while the second produces 400-500 contributors with an equal number of consumers. However, the Intranet solution will add 5,000 consumers to the environment. Which do you choose? Should you add the option that will increase your usage or the option that will increase your content?
The content versus usage debate is the same as the Chicken and the Egg argument. When you have large amounts of content usage will emerge and when you have a high degree of usage content will emerge. That being said, take the 100 collaborative sites which will add the content at the opportunity cost of the usage put forth by the Intranet. More importantly, the Intranet solution merely fools people in thinking that that you are collaborating while the second one actually alters the behavior of the individuals. I’ll take the short term pain for the long term payoff of the 100 collaborative sites.
