This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Java Buzz
by Michael Cote.
Original Post: Wicked Smart Comments on Social Software
Feed Title: Cote's Weblog: Coding, Austin, etc.
Feed URL: https://cote.io/feed/
Feed Description: Using Java to get to the ideal state.
I asked him to clarify the latter statement, and he explained that most collaborative software tries to enforce too much structure. These tools force users to figure out how to fit the data into the tool, whereas the tools should fit the data. In this vein, Ross spoke highly of Wikis and blogs, and also of human filtering (such as Google's technique of measuring backlinks) as a way of organizing information.
See MS Sharepoint for a good example of "most collaborative software."
Tools that work the way people do--rather than how they are supposed to-- is counter-intuitive. Lo and behold, they suprisingly work. From selling and servicing social software, I can tell you that one of the first issues raised is how giving up control and structure (as in data) could result in inefficiencies in reporting and intelligence. But software without pre-designed constraints is suprisingly adaptable for reporting. And the intelligence you gain from all those groups forming, intertwingling and linking openly is emergent. Suddenly you are making decisions based on what your organization knows and feels is important.
The lack of control (part of what makes "social software" so good) is the major counter-argument I see coming from detractor; somehow, reaping the collective intellegence, and info-processing, of the organization has to be made (1.) plausible, and, (2.) valuable to overcome the command-and-control safety net.
Additionally, there are comments on Ye Olde Disruptive Technology and light finessing of the "email is dead" argument. I don't think email is really dead, it's just a boring medium; it works quite well, though.
Previous Topic
