Julie Cottin and Alex Williams plea for cutting through the wood by bringing what I call a countermessage
This usually happens when a hot topic or hype gets picked up. A hype is nothing else but a new way to do pretty much the same thing, albeit (much) faster, better, cheaper or more efficient. In that, it is a new means to (roughly) the same goal
After a while, means are being mistaken for goals. Then people start criticising the hype because their perception of it (it is a goal) doesn't allow for a business case, or ROI
Then, the people who consider it to be just a means start redefining the meaning or even completely rebranding the initial term that has become tainted
And then, after long debates and disagreements and the creation of new camps and fragmented subgroups, we end up interpreting and selling the new hype as either means or goals or any half-hearted solution in between – and missing the goal nearly completely (sigh)
It's just the way we think we are. Look at how we have done religion, politics, anything. We hate to be perceived wrong, especially by ourselves - oh well
So we now seem to have indeed come to that point
But, in the middle of this barfight (Andrew McAfee seems to be occupied with signing his book),
Fresh addition Nov 17th 23:19 CET: Andrew's latest view on social (feel free to skip to Jevon's question #9)Dachis comes along with a vision, goal and approach:
Dachis also just sticks to the (their) term Social Business Design, fortunately
People are first, clear on that
Process is fine, but David's clearly lost for focus there:
An organization may need to architect a series of flows which can handle a multitude of scenarios.Oh well, too early for that anyway (orchestrating your social stuff enterprise-wide real-time)
Technology has an interesting spin on upscaling and control. Looks like that's enterprise-ready already...
I say it's a milestone, just don't ask me why, I'll have to sleep on that. Still quiet around Altimeter (Ray's been busy with Dennis this week!), what's cooking?