Skip to content

Social objects in the enterprise: some early thoughts

Origins of “social objects”

Nearly four years ago, Jyri Engestrom introduced us to the concept of social objects, and Hugh Macleod built on that theme, and what they said really resonated with me. As a result, I’ve been writing about social objects for a while, as you can see here from three years ago here, or more recently here and, only three months ago, here.

During that time, there’d been something gnawing away at me, driven largely by my gaining an increasing understanding of what consumerisation really means and implies. And what’s been gnawing away at me is this: are there social objects in the enterprise? If so is there a difference between the behaviour and characteristics of social objects in the enterprise and in the world at large? And does any of this matter anyway?

It seemed to make sense that the answer to these questions would be found in a better understanding of the systems used to create, publish, enrich, comment on and even exchange the digital social objects, so that was what I did. I engaged as passionately as possible with each wave, played with them for a while, sought to define analogies for them within the enterprise, and then refined them further by publishing my views on this blog and learning from the comments. This was what I did with blogs and wikis to begin with, then with facebook, and then with twitter. More recently, since joining Salesforce, I’ve been able to look more deeply into some of these aspects, particularly as I immersed myself in Chatter.

Systems of Record

The first layer of learning was about the differences between the enterprise world and the consumer world when it came to some of these systems. The thinking goes something like this:

  • For centuries firms were viewed as hierarchies of customers and products. Naturally, this view permeated into the way firms accounted for what they did; everything in a firm was recorded as relating to customers or products, under the broad headings of costs, revenues and overheads. More recently this perspective of the firm has changed: as Boston professor N. Venkatraman has been telling us for a decade, firms are now networks of relationships and capabilities. Human and social capital are therefore rising in prominence; the conventions and systems to recognise and value and account for them are, however, somewhat lacking.
  • The first “systems” to be computerised, comprising the processes, records and conventions underpinning what people actually did, these systems related to the ledgers and books of record that were being automated. So what we did was to enshrine the centuries-old way of looking at firms as hierarchies of products and customers. The way cost and profit centres were set up, the codes used, the way things were aggregated, “rolled up”, everything we did was redolent of the original thesis: firms were hierarchies of products and customers.
  • These first systems, over time, became the backbone of the firm, the “books and records” that were inspectable, auditable, audited and reported. As the years went by, people started calling them enterprise resource management or ERP systems.
  • The 1980s and 1990s provided firms with two shocks. The first shock was a real hard one. They discovered they had “customers”. Life did not actually begin and end within the walls of the organisation they worked for and often revered. So firms began to think of customers as something more than account numbers, and tried not to show their irritation when these “customers” actually wanted some help or advice or attention. Retail outlets actually began to think of the space they used for administration, in contrast to the space they reserved for “customers”. Utility service providers such as banks and water companies and transportation providers and telcos began their painful paths towards recognising the very existence of the customer, a path they continue to be on.
  • The second shock was not quite as hard, but it was a shock nevertheless. Firms discovered that they had “supply chains”, that vertical integration was no longer guaranteed, that they needed to partner with others, source from others, in order just to survive. [At this stage I shall resist the temptation to speak of the tremendous damage done to industry in general as everything in sight was “re-engineered”, an age of some truly appalling waste in the context of misguided and suboptimal reorganisations and outsourcing.]
  • So during the decade between 1990 and 2000, the world of ERP had been joined by at least two more TLAs, Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and Supply Chain Management (SCM). [While I saw all three terms active in the mid-to-late 1980s, they were slow to come out of the gates from a computing perspective].
  • This ERP-SCM-CRM world was just beginning to toodle along as the Web emerged and grew, and as a result a fourth classification emerged, that of e-commerce or e-biz or sometimes just “fulfilment”. And this whole shebang begat a slew of forks and joins and renames as they evolved, and billing, payments, complaints, enquiries and so on all took their place somewhere within that pantheon. Some went the way of CRM, others disappeared into the ERP camp, yet others wormed their way into e-commerce.
  • And so the stage was set. These were the transactions of old, the full-grown equivalents of what started off as TP systems, laying out the books and records of the firm in all their glory. The Systems of Record were present, ready and accounted for.

Systems of Engagement

The second layer of learning dealt with the systems I’d become more familiar with over the past decade or so, in my post-Cluetrain state. [Note: I love The Cluetrain Manifesto, I think everyone who enjoys reading this blog should read that book at least once; I’m privileged to call the four authors my friends, and honoured to have been asked to submit a chapter to their 10th anniversary edition, now available in paperback as well.]

Cluetrain taught me many things, but three things stand out as the most important for me: one, that firms make money because their customers like what they stand for and what they do; two, that good firms have real, active relationships with their customers, they are in constant conversation with them, that the conversation is the way that values and needs and wants and aspirations and intentions are discovered and shared; and three, that for some reason firms keep forgetting this and morphing into command-and-control fortresses that “lock in” customers, “target” them and various other forms of corporate waterboarding.

Right now my thinking is somewhere along these lines:

  • Systems of engagement make it easier for people to communicate with each other; the original telcos and post offices provided systems of engagement; as we added ways to communicate, these agencies had to change; Microsoft was the leading “system of engagement” provider for most of the last twenty-five years; facebook has now usurped their place.
  • Initially, systems of engagement start very open and informal for a given communication medium: post, telegraph, telephone, email, IM, SMS, twitter, video calling. Then, as critical mass forms, many things change, search costs increase and the need for directories emerges. Classification systems enter the fray. Better search tools evolve.
  • Each medium of communication comes with its own jargon, its short cuts, its conventions. Some of these fade away as a greater level of formality is afforded, others become a part of the furniture. [A friend and erstwhile colleague, Stu Berwick, used to remind me “It’s polite to be silent” when talking about chat. What I’ve learnt since is that this is true for most new communications techniques. When I began using email, you didn’t have to reply to every one. The same was true for chat, for SMS, for twitter. But now….]
  • In a digital world, as the “system of engagement” matures, something else happens. The process of communication gets embedded with objects. Attachments to emails: documents, presentations, spreadsheets to begin with, all kinds of files later. Attachments to SMS: just pictures and sounds to begin with, soon video. Attachments to twitter: links to begin with, then photographs and sounds, now all of the above, usually presented as a shortened link.
  • The internet changes the way systems of engagement work. All communication becomes at least two-way. Attachments disappear, to be replaced by everyone “looking” at the same object. The ability to comment on, enrich, amend, annotate is a powerful change agent, transforming the value of the embedded object. As a result, the tools change: digital social objects are editable, amendable, commentable, taggable. Archivable, searchable, findable. But in a new form, with a plethora of comments and other actions wrapped around the object.

The emerging role of social objects in the enterprise

We’re only just learning about these two layers, the systems of engagement and the systems of record. But one thing we know already, they’re fundamentally different. Systems of record tend to get built like Fort Knox: robust, imposing, unfriendly, hard to enter, hard to exit carrying anything at all, a place known and loved by very few, yet relied upon by many. Systems of engagement, on the other hand, are diametrically different: entry is available to all and sundry, there’s a level of openness in all interaction, the core behavioural style looks positively promiscuous in comparison to systems of record.

This fundamental difference, open versus closed, appears to permeate throughout what passes for social objects in each layer.

So when you look at “social” objects in the “systems of engagement” layer, at first sight they appear very anti-social indeed. Reports and enquiries generated by the systems of record are made available and accessible using the same rules as the systems of record themselves, Fort Knoxian security.

Appearances are deceptive. Because the way the reports and enquiries manifest themselves in systems of engagement is usually through e-mail and, more accurately, through e-mail attachments. Which are about as secure as …. well you all know the story of Cablegate.

As against this, the social objects that tend to manifest themselves in the systems of engagement are fundamentally social in character. Web urls are the most common, often shortened for convenience. The social objects pointed to are usually public in origin and availability. Most multimedia “attachments” are essentially uploads to public sites rather than mail-like attachments.

The problem space

These are very interesting times. The two layers of systems, the systems of record and the systems of convenience, are coming closer together, tectonic plates sliding gently across each other. No one has a problem with the anti-social objects that remain closed and private and confidential within the confines of the systems of record. No one has a problem with the social objects that remain open and web-based and public within the “unconfines” of the systems of engagement.

The problem is really to do with the export of private objects from the systems of record into the public space of the systems of engagement.

The first time we tried to do this, we exported the private objects either partially or completely into documents, presentations or spreadsheets, then proceeded to make them uncontrollably public by attaching them to e-mail. And look where that got us.

This time around, with tools like Chatter, the binding and orchestration between systems of record and systems of engagement is granular and controlled, down to individual data elements. Access security is much simpler to implement. And there is no confusion between what forms a social object and what doesn’t.

Outlook for social objects in the enterprise

Objects per se aren’t social; it’s the community around the object that makes it social. As long as enterprises are about communities, we will have social objects in the enterprise. As we  continue to morph from product-customer hierarchies to relationship-capability networks, as we continue to bring human and social capital to the fore, as we continue to engage with our customers and supply chain, the enterprise will be more and more about communities.

And communities need social objects. Real social objects, not inadvertently publicised private objects.

More later.

Posted in Four pillars .

26 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Balaji Sowmyanaraanan says

    Brilliant Post!
    Very good buildup for opening-up the Fort Knox indeed.

    the binding and orchestration between systems of record and systems of engagement is granular and controlled, down to individual data elements. Access security is much simpler to implement

    Interesting Scenario: I can ‘Allow’ an App to view my history of (telco’s)Phone call logs to tell me who Top 10 people I spent time on phone in past 3-months. Share the output on (say) Twitter and trigger more social action.

    I understand it as Facebookization of (transaction) records in the FortKnox.

    Access control has come a long way form the good old rw-r–r–( Remember the chmod 644) to sophisticated App permission settings in Facebook.

    I remember you talking about information Capillaries and Filters in the social(FB, Twitter) context. How enterprise software is going to empower data owners( each customer owns her data) to setup Filter and Capillaries for their data is going to be very interesting.

    Interesting times indeed!

    I’m glad I came across this blog post via your twitter update!

  2. clive boulton says

    My solution, in a conservative corporation, is to avoid the export of private objects: Author in SiideShare, then blog privately referencing the embedded public Slideshare object. This allows feedback of at least the number of views in the public space, yet also private space engagement.

    Social application experts like Dave Morin at Path, seem to be hard at work turning data into information by privately sharing, with limited communities, publicly.

  3. John Mancini says

    This is a very thought-provoking post, thanks JP. Some of the foundation work re Systems of Record and Systems of Engagement was done by Geoff Moore and an AIIM Task Force this past summer. Downloads of the resulting white paper are free —

  4. JP says

    Nice to see you active here again, Balaji, you were one of my earliest commenters. I really think we’re at an inflection point when it comes to enterprise software.

  5. JP says

    @clive, one of the things I find extremely puzzling is the intensity with which people keep information asymmetric within the corporation. I can just about begin to understand the tension when sharing with people outside the firm, but this is not about conservatism. It is about treating people as human beings rather than spreadsheet fodder.

  6. JP says

    @john thank you. I will immediately link to Geoff’s piece in my next post. glad you found mine useful.

  7. Mike Leach says

    Great thoughts. It’ll be interesting to see if Salesforce can turn Chatter into a customer facing Cluetrain engagement platform.

  8. JP says

    @mike chatter is a system of engagement, an enterprise bus, a publish-subscribe mechanism, a place to be. the challenge is not in making chatter customer-facing (there are already chatter implementations, like the one we had for Dreamforce last year, which bring customers and partners and staff together). the real hard bits are in reconciling the security philosophy differences between the systems of engagement and the systems of record.

  9. Clive Boulton says

    @JP extremely puzzling . . . Axelrod’s evolution of cooperation (be “nice”, be provocable, promote the mutual interest) applied to character of Researchers vs Commercial types:

    * Researchers learn to co-operate and gain esteem by publishing.
    * Commercial types learn to negotiate gains from information asymmetry.

    Behaviors are copied into the dominant cultures of organisations …

  10. JP says

    @clive I think it has to do with incentives. the incentives are different between researchers and commercial types

  11. Gideon Rosenblatt says

    JP – thanks so much for this piece. It *really* got me thinking, and I’ve posted an article that (quotes this one) builds on some of the observations you’ve made here. It’s called “CRM is Social Technology” and you can find it here:

    Here’s a quote from the article:
    Being able to track and restrict access to social objects based on the firm’s relationships with individual people is the next step in making organizational boundaries more porous. This is truly mind-bending stuff when you digest the implications. It’s going to make it way easier to coordinate collaboration between people in different organizations and it’s going to redefine the way organizations collaborate with their customers. CRM transforms organizational boundaries from dumb walls into smart membranes through which firms coordinate their second-order engagement with customers and partners.

Continuing the Discussion

  1. Tweets that mention Social objects in the enterprise: some early thoughts – confused of calcutta -- linked to this post on February 24, 2011

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Alex Howard, terserah123. terserah123 said: RT @digiphile: .@jobsworth on "social objects" in the enterprise Recommended. #e20 #gov20 […]

  2. Social media, start-ups and the system of management « Esko Kilpi on Interactive Value Creation linked to this post on February 24, 2011

    […] you @jobsworth for being the inspiration for this […]

  3. Thinking more about social objects in the enterprise – confused of calcutta linked to this post on February 24, 2011

    […] Note: This is a follow-up from yesterday’s post. […]

  4. Lesetipps für den 25. Februar | - das Beste aus Blogs, Videos, Musik und Web 2.0 linked to this post on February 25, 2011

    […] 2.0 Social objects in the enterprise: some early thoughts….: Exzellenter Beitrag von JP […]

  5. Social objects in the enterprise: Part 3 – confused of calcutta linked to this post on February 27, 2011

    […] third post in an emergent series on Social Objects In The Enterprise. The first two can be found here and […]

  6. links for 2011-02-27 :: Blog :: Headshift linked to this post on February 27, 2011

    […] Social objects in the enterprise: some early thoughts – confused of calcutta (tags: enterprise socialbusiness socialobjects) […]

  7. linked to this post on February 27, 2011

    […] JP Ranagaswami’s latest series on social objects in the enterprise. His series so far is here, here, and […]

  8. CRM is Social Technology linked to this post on March 17, 2011

    […] been thinking about this idea since we developed our CRM program in my last job, but it was a series of three posts about “social objects” by JP Rangaswami (one of my favorite bloggers, by […]

  9. Connected companies, complex systems, and social intranets - Intranet Blog - ThoughtFarmer linked to this post on April 6, 2011

    […] time contributors and practitioners. Just in the last two months, I’ve seen great posts from JP Rangaswami, Geoffrey Moore, Luis Suarez, and of course, Thomas Vander Wal, further contributing to our […]

  10. How big is the New Enterprise, and what shape does it take? at achurch & associates linked to this post on April 7, 2011

    […] be net positive about “social business”): Headshift’s Lee Bryant addressing the idea of scaleJP Rangaswami (currently at Salesforce, but has been pushing this barrow for a long time) – reconciling […]

  11. Are Cloud Computing AND Social Enterprise both at Tipping Points? | Australian Cloud linked to this post on September 13, 2011

    […] Chatter enhancements with a show about social enterprise. In that case you should read some of the thoughts underlying it, in particular those of JP […]

  12. Enterprise 2.0 Blog » Social objects as explanation of the E20 significance of social messaging linked to this post on September 16, 2011

    […] Social objects in the enterprise: some early thoughts […]

  13. Head, Hand and Heart for Change « Cognitive Noise linked to this post on January 5, 2012

    […] system responses and agents are playing part. Here is where stories that people tell each other and social objects come in, bringing players from all over the system for action […]

  14. The role of trust in the Social Enterprise – confused of calcutta linked to this post on July 7, 2012

    […] roles to play in this regard. [For more on the theory of Social Objects, you may want to refer to these three posts. […]

  15. Life’s too short | Enterprise Thinking linked to this post on May 6, 2013

    […] first came across the idea of social objects in a post by JP Rangaswami. I worked at BT when JP was a CIO there, and his writing has always been […]

Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.

%d bloggers like this: