So, I did a bit of consulting, again in retail. This concerned an internal project, and the consultation was casual and precursory, fitting the state of the project; it hasn't really gotten out of the paper napkin stage.
The idea is this: many very smart MBA-types at this large company sense of see real value in social computing, and would like to introduce some concepts to their company for very good reasons: to effect a cultural change by introducing a social computing app that demonstrates clear value to not only decision makers, but also to the masses. The MBAs themselves are young Facebook-grads newly minted from college, and so they maybe swim in the sea of social computing.
But swimming here, or being native, and developing implementation strategy are two different things.
THe MBAs have access to a wiki solution, and see a lot of potential value in the tool for their organization. Their plan is ( was? ) to introduce it to the higher-ups, let the value speak for itself, and then have use trickle down from the top to the masses.
I advised against this, for a number of reasons:
I have never seen a working example of top-down, mandated social computing. I've seen plenty of grassroots stuff, starting from teh bottom and getting a critical mass of obvious value. Ive seen a few examples of partnered effort, developing a solution that works. But never top-down. It might work, but I get this feeling that mandated social computing ( "now we all need to use the wiki" ) is not a recipe for success. It seems to me this kind of technology needs adoption that can't be mandated.
This is accepting the premise that the MBAs could -get- the higher-ups to adopt the technology. I was not convinced of that, but why strike at pride, when you can appeal to practicality?
Also, and much more important, I opined that it seemed to me that the group had it's heart int eh right place, but might be going about their goal the wrong way. I asked what goals are you trying to acheive? Meaning, what problems are you trying to solve? When you know that, and who you are trying to benefit, then which tool ( wiki, or something else? ) becomes a much easier question to answer. Deciding that you're going to use a wiki because you can afford to keep it up is kind of like going into a hardware store, telling the clerk you have "some work" to do on your house, showing him or her $20 and asking what you can get for that?
You might get a spiffy hammer. But what if you really need to drill some holes, or paint a wall, or grout some tile? Your hammer might not be all that useful.
The same applies for social computing, of course. Except instead of $20 for a hammer, you spend thousands and thousands of dollars in capital, time and other resources chasing after a hazy goal with the wrong tools and a tactical ( as opposed to strategic ) plan.
The ideas of effecting social change, or implementing social media and computing, and solving a tough problem with amazing solutions are all admirable goals. But the planning and thinking things through before hand, with someone who knows how, is essential.
Now, where did I put that hammer...?
You see, I have some pctures to hang. In doing this, I know I have nails to pound. And although I could use the side of a drill, or the flat of a saw, or the bottom of a paintbrush to drive the nails, a hammer really is the best tool for that.
Comments