Comments on: Musing about the value of social software

By: strategic change management

strategic change management — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:02:19 +0000

strategic change management…

Great post. My approach to strategic change management says the quality of the first five percent determines what happens in the rest of the process. This same principle applies to many situations….

By: RIP: ROI « Think Much - by Penny Edwards

RIP: ROI « Think Much - by Penny Edwards — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:39:14 +0000

[...] ’success’ in terms of bottom-line profitability (e.g. Why Bother with Social Software, Musing About the Value of Social Software, Calculating the ROI of [...]

By: Investing - hope over reality? « The thing about useful stuff is

Investing - hope over reality? « The thing about useful stuff is — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:19:58 +0000

[...] JP Rangaswami, ex Head of IT at DKW, and who led an IT revolution at that firm, has a great piece on his blog on the subject of the value of social software. He makes some great points, [...]

By: Meghan Attreed

Meghan Attreed — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:31:14 +0000

Hi JP,
I’m interested on your opinion of enterprise 2.0 and would love to introduce you to David Lavenda of Serendipity Technologies (http://www.srndpt.com/). If you’re interested in what David has to say about enterprise 2.0 or would be interested to learn more about Serendipity and David, please let me know and I’d be happy to introduce you.

Thanks!
Meghan

By: Process Perfection

Process Perfection — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:16:43 +0000

OMG, it’s Enterprise 2.0

Oh, holy hype hoopla, Batman. There is — I kid you not — a neologism that encompasses the sort of “blogging in the enterprise” idea that I recently posted about. That neologism is “Enterprise 2.0″ (see Wikipedia entry here ) (Note that, in a…

By: Jon Husband

Jon Husband — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 02:37:07 +0000

All accounting methods and practices are the result of agreed-upon, shared and codified assumptions about social psychology.

There’s no reason i can see for why the interaction aafforded by interconnection will 9eventually) change work design massively, which will then need concommitant changes to compensation.

Likewise with many ‘bedrock’ assumptions about accounting in general, as interactivity, disintermediation and re-intermediation make value flows look and act differently .. such as when variable pricing into a range of niches becomes common-place.

probably be a while yet, though … not until it becomes abundantly clear that current GAAP has lost too much effectiveness to portray and report those flows adequately.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:35:59 +0000

Hi,

You’re clearly a person who gets ‘it’. I’m organising a weeks worth of events related to the above in my organization. Lots of fun and challenging tracks. Would you be interested in coming along to talk about social software and its place in the enterprise? We’d love to have you come along…

By: Stephen Smoliar

Stephen Smoliar — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:06:53 +0000

JP, actually the Innovator’s Dilemma implication reinforces my point if you remember what Christensen proposed by way of a solution, which is that a large organization should create a “safe” niche within which radical change can be allowed to develop and receive a fair assessment. In other words, if the change is too radical to “fit” the existing organization (which is probably tautologically true if the change is radical!), create a NEW PLACE in the organization where it will fit. Hey, it’s not for nothing that the SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY now has an entry for “skunk works!” Traditionally, though, skunk works have been sandboxes where cool is the only currency. These days SOMEONE needs to think about consequences, too!

By: John Dodds

John Dodds — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:46:57 +0000

Yes you made sense and I’m not surprised (indeed I expected) that your view was that an ROI exercise was pointless (except for internal marketing puproses) if the cost of calculating it how ever vaguely exceeded the low cost of the social software. But I agree totally with Dennis as I indicated in my first comment – too many claims are made without an ROI proof because this allows causaliites to be suggested without testing.

By: JP

JP — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 06:30:31 +0000

Nicely put, Dennis. Which is why I entered the fray, joining you guys in investigating this aspect. Hitherto I had kept away from the ROI issues.

Maybe what I am saying in the last post is that the connection you refer to, the connection that can bridge the gap between balance sheet and market, is about human capital. And, as you say in your comment on the Forrester blog, the measurement of human capital is a burgeoning discipline with a lot of learning to get through.

Stephen, I am still working through what you’ve said, finding some of it hard because of the implied Innovator’s Dilemma there. Your arguments do not seem to allow for radical change in any environment. But that’s unfair, I am still digesting what you wrote. More later.