Comments on: Collaboration and social media terminology?

By: James Robertson

James Robertson — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:48:14 +0000

@Dorje, interesting as ever. The “task, people, tool” is very similar to the age-old KM model of people, process, technology (and more recently, content).

By: James Robertson

James Robertson — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:46:51 +0000

@Janet, that’s a superb list of categories, much better than mine!

In light of the post, perhaps the category that is missing is “connect”, and then the set is complete …

I’m also a fan of the evolutionary approach. At the IntraTeam conference in Denmark yesterday, Richard Dennisson from BT talked about “evolution rather than revolution”. He highlighted that talk of revolution scared people (particularly IT), was counterproductive, and probably unrealistic. Instead, taking an evolutionary approach, like the one you’ve outlined, allows progress to be steadily made. Good stuff.

By: Dorje McKinnon

Dorje McKinnon — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:05:18 +0000

James,
Timely post for me also – the March IntranetsLive event two days ago had a very interesting slide which outlined how governance models need to change – part of a report by IBF (I think, don’t have my notes).
The basic premise of the slide was to differentiate, in the same way you have, governance.
The three areas were: task, people, tool.
I’ll post on my blog in the next couple of weeks the detail of the slide (and slide if I’m able to) so everyone can draw their own conclusions.
DorejM

By: Janet Kuntz

Janet Kuntz — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:38:15 +0000

This is a very timely post. I’m preparing a presentation on the topic of how web2.0 technologies can address the challenges of sharing information, finding information and reducing the use of e-mail within an organization. For sharing information, I’ve broken it down into communicate (blog, webcast, podcast, intranets), exchange (surveys, transactions), dialogue (discussion boards, instant messaging) and collaborate (shared workspaces, wikis, netmeetings, workflow).

I’m also finding that in a conservative culture, the terms used with “social media” often have negative connotations, resulting in web2.0 technology being intruduced using different terms to accomplish the same outcome. For example, a blog from the president of a company officially starts off as an “on-line quarterly update” using blog technology. Over time, the acceptance of the media and methods means that the updates become more frequent and the original purpose occurs organically,albeit more slowly