Coordinated social media strategies by 2016 ? Why 2016 ?

Gartner just issued their predictions about technologies that will deserve highlights in 2010, with a large part dedicated to social software. It includes both interesting and suprinsing things?

First, their analysis distinguish between “social networking”, “social collaboration”, “social publishing” and “social feedback”. Why not, after all. I even find that it makes sense from a learning point of view. Boundaries between social networking “stricto sensu”, tools that have a wide range of use or are used in the limited scope of a community and, at last, social spaces (that can be called “communities” or “groups”) are so blurred that organizations are totally lost. What brings a lot of confusion when they have to design any project related to these points. So this vision is relevant to help them understand how each logic works.

It’s surprising at the same time since it’s hrd to imagine one without the other. In order to make a social network help its members to go beyond strong ties, information is needed to identify people across the organization. So it’s hard to imagine a comprehensive strategy that whould nor articulate social networking and social publishing / collaboration. Let’s even push this logic further : in terms of product, it’s clear that any product that only offers one without the others will suffer from limitations that are more than crippling. Today, organizations can do DIY but the more this kind of issue will become strategic the less they’lln accept incomprehensive solutions.

For instance, social network analysis that Gartner puts in the social networking field would be more relevant if relying not only on ties but also on interactions…what brings us back to social collaboration and social publishing….

Gartner also says that, in 2016, social tools will be integrated with business tools. I already shared my point of view about that many times and have some other posts being writen : according to me that’s something unavoidable. Now, let’s talk about the 2016 dead-line. In my opinion, in addition to delivering more value by making the solution being one-click away from the problem (knowing that each additional click makes 30% users give up) such an integration has another upside : by making social activities more senseful, that favors tool adoption in order to make users come closer to community behaviors because they came to use tools for process-driven reasons. But I’m affraid that, until 2016, many people and organizations lose their breath in a middleware-employee logic.

I think the same about the idea according to which organizations will have coordinated social media strategies by 2016. That sounds obvious but let’s be careful ; if having coordinated tool strategies in one thing, but it doesn’t imply coordinated management strategies. Coordinating tool strategies will not solve the incapacity to share resources across silos, to use a social media as a channel to deliver anything or execute a plan instead of as a legacy media, to turn communication into service… I’m affraid that Gartner is mistaking technology strategy with global strategy…the latter needing to come become the former if one don’t want tools to remain on the shelf. It would be very dangerous for organizations to think that “everything will be solved in 2016″ just like by magic. Nothing will improve if they don’t start  working on the needed global strategy to be ready by 2016

Je me fais la même réflexion par rapport à la prédiction qui veut que les entreprises aient une stratégie “coordonnée” en 2016. Par là entendons entre le networking et le collaboratif, entre l’interne et l’externe. Là encore, c’est quelque chose qui résonne comme une évidence. Mais attention : avoir des stratégies outils coordonnées est une bonne chose, mais dans ce domaine il faudrait également coordonner les stratégies managériales. On pourra coordonner tous les outils, cela ne résoudra rien à l’incapacité des organisations à partager leurs ressources entre les services, à se servir d’un “social media” comme un canal pour exécuter un plan ou un process et non comme un media, à transformer la communication en service etc… J’ai bien peut qu’ici Gartner confonde la stratégie outil avec la stratégie tout court…la seconde ayant intérêt à précéder la première si on ne veut pas que les outils restent sur l’étagère. Il serait dangereux, qu’une fois de plus, les entreprises se disent “tout sera réglé par magie en 2016″. Rien ne se le sera si elles ne travaillent pas d’ici là sur la stratégie en question.

Conclusion : A lot of things that make sense but I still don’t understand why 2016. Close enough not to be to far while letting enough time to issue other predictions and change one’s mindcin the meanwhile…

Lats point : analytics. I recently wrote things about bringing intelligence into social software and let technology do the middleware work that is often devoted to users. : the analytics concept is all about that. Globally speaking, the only value of social software today is to allow users to adopt more efficient practices. But let’s be frank : the software does not deliver any added value in addition to what people can deliver by developing new synergies. This step will allow enterprise social software solutions to add their own added value on top of user’s. Doing so, these solutions will be more appealing for users, so will be more used, so will bring more value…what is the start of a virtous circle.

Do we need a social CRM Magic Quadrant ?

Gartner recently published a new Magic Quadrant about Social CRM (than can be downloaded at Jive with registration). I have no special thought about the content right now but I think the very idea of this specific quadrant can be questioned.

At the time when all the discourses converge on saying that, even if it’s not exactly the same thing, Enterprise 2.0 and Social CRM approaches need to be thought jointly in a consistant fashion because they feed one another, it may seem surprising that a Social CRM Magic Quadrant comes in addition to the already existing enterprise 2.0 one.

Anyway, it reflects the state of the market : some solutions are focused on internal collaboration, others makes the bridge with external communities and media and, even if some vendors may want to specialize on a niche, I guess that in a near future, being credible on both fields will be mandatory for any player. But, right now, it’s clear that except for some vendors (that were not all eligible for the quadrant), the photography of the market looks more like if there was two distinct markets.

We have to keep in mind that, as a market builder, Garder just justified the strategy that has been chosen by some players of the Enterprise Social Software market such as Jive or blueKiwi that are beginning to embrace the analytics side of CRM and brings a social layer to it as well as CRM players that are trying to get the social fiber. As a matter of fact, the fact that the two leaders, Jive and Lithiym, are so close to the center of the Quadrant demonstrates that the processus of integrating the two worlds is only at its beginning and that the road will be very long.

Anyway the trend is here : the Sony case that was shown in Boston and the discussions that took place in Both Boston and Milan in june during two major conferences show that businesses are beginning to deal with both approaches at the same time in a structured and joint approach and are expecting vendors and consultants to give them adequate answers.

What bothers me a little bit is when I try to think as if I were the client. The latter thinks in terms of global stratgey and separating the two markers may makes him split his reflection and build application silos instead of opening the channels and fluidy interactions across the corporate membrane. Even if relevant in some ways, adopting this standpoint is like looking with vendor’s eyes and neglecting actual customer needs.

So, how can an enterprise that is thinking, beyond tool, of new effective ways to create value, deal with these quadrants ? Superimpose both and eliminate vendors that are one-market-only players ? Why not.

Maybe analysts can help by changing their switching their prism. Even if their job is to help businesses to choose the right technology, they should understand that technology is pointless out of a value driven approach that does not exist in the analysis. Maybe offering a “Value creation in open ecosystems” would provide customers with a more relevant viewpoint. I agree it may be quite hard to design but when one’s mission is to build and light up markets, being aligned with changing market drivers is mandatory.

But maybe such reports are made to help vendors and not customers…

Enterprise 2.0 : the time when Mr McKinsey, The Geek and Mrs Smith seat together

One of the biggest issues encountered in the the first “enteprise 2.0″ projets and, globally in everything that aimed at changing in any way the people work according to current issues, was the fact the interested parties where all going in their own direction without taking the others into account. Some thinking the others would naturally know where to go, some thinking they weren’t heard by the others.

It seems that this time will soon be over, if I rely on my own observations and that whe can read between the lines of the Hype 2008 Gartner report on “web and users interations technologies“.

As a matter of fact, McKinsey, the Geek and Mrs Smith decided to talk to each other.

What I am talking about ?

[Read more...]