Knowledge Management resources

Interesting Blogs

Google Analytics

« Integrating the Interactions with the Transactions | Main | Integrating Transactions and Interactions: A Fable »

November 29, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Claude Super

You're right, but to say it's all about the technology takes our focus off the critical management changes that are necessary for enterprise 2.0 to truly succeed!
Technology (web 2.0 tools, collaboration platforms, mobiles, etc.), is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to succeed in a such business.

bill  Ives

Charles - Thanks for the clarification. I certainly did not mean that is all about the technology. I just did not want us to say "it is not the technology" which seems to be a mantra these days. You are right is thtat it is a mx of people process and technology.

John T Maloney (@jheuristic)

Hi - Good post. People still don't get triangulation. This will help - a lot:

The Plugged-In Manager


bill  Ives

Thanks John for your input and the link. Looks like a useful event.


Hi Bill,

Thanks for the mention!

My feeling is that the technology makes social business possible, but it's the people who make it succeed.

I have seen many experts dismiss the technology as unimportant, which I believe is wrong, because it the technology is often the catalyst or the enabler to start a business working more socially. But equally, organizations that are not prepared to embrace the organizational change that social business brings will fail to get full value out of that technology.

The integration piece is an interesting point, which perhaps highlights a slightly different issue. I've found the original graphic from Jeremiah Owyang which mentions this ( Note the way that in an organization with advanced social business maturity, the custom technology development spending leaps up from being more than 5x more than that of an organization with intermediate maturity.

My theory for this (which I don't have confirmation from Altimeter about, but I do have many pieces of anecdotal evidence with which to justify it) is that in the early stages, organizations adopt social tools in a somewhat chaotic fashion. It is only as the projects mature, they go back and tie it all together. That's why [ warning - shameless product plug approaching ] we at BroadVision make a big thing about Clearvale's "social ecosystems" that allow these various internal and external social initiatives to be managed a coherent whole entity.

bill  Ives

Richard - thanks for your comprehensive comment. I like you first sentence. It is spot on. While the people issues are key we cannot say it is not about the technology because technology sets the stage for people to act. Bill


Bill, thank you for the reference and your nice words regarding my post. My main thesis is very similar to what Richard mentioned above. Of course technology can play a huge role (that's the fourth point in my post), but (i) technology is also developed by people! and (ii) unless you have a problem you are solving for, you will be lost.

I really like Richard's theory, and as a matter of fact, for many of the experiments I have been involved in, we used a lot of manual labor to understand what we truly needed before looking for a software solution.



Technology is important. People are important too. Here's the really bad news. Without purpose, neither people nor technology will prevail. In the end, you need all three. goes into more detail on that.

bill  Ives


Thanks for your response. I certainly do agree with your point about technology needs to be simple. This is often a fatal mistake that vendors make as they pile on the features I agree even more with your point about technology needing to be people centric and the need for people (users) to be involved in its design. I have been involved in many technology implementations on the change management or people side. I have seen that the success of the introducing a new solution that involves technology is directly proportionate to the amount of involvement by the eventual users, The point of my title was to both start a conversation and I am pleased that this has happen but also to say that let's not overlook that there are some tech issues, especially integration ones.

Bill: When we say it's not about the technology, we're saying that it's not about technology for technology's sake, but technology for the sake of the individual (

The biggest problem is still a HUGE elephant in the living room: most technology projects are staffed with nothing but technologists. And where they even agree to hire people-focused staff they will often disqualify them based on the use of certain technologies.

There are very few technologies today whose designs are lead by (or even include participatory contributions from) non-technical resources. This is the main travesty.

bill  Ives

Paula - Thanks for your comment and I certainly agree with everything you wrote. Business people need to lead projects, not technologists. I was only wanting to avoid going to the other extreme and not looking at the technology issues like the need to integration of old and new school tools.

network infrastructure solutions

this is something i was looking for thanks for sharing this with us

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

RSS Subscribers

Share Portals and KM on Facebook

  • Share on Facebook


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Some Recent Articles

Linked In

  • View Bill Ives's profile on LinkedIn

Site Meter