|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| | | see: [[Social Object]] |
| =Principles=
| |
| | |
|
| |
| JP Rangaswami:
| |
| | |
| " First, some principles:
| |
| | |
| * An object becomes social only when it is shared; it is the sharing that makes the object social, not the object per se.
| |
|
| |
| * A social object creates value not for itself but for the community in which it is shared.
| |
|
| |
| * The process by which value is created is by the community interacting with the object, leaving comments, classifications, tags, notes, notations, corrections, observations, links, questions and even answers.
| |
|
| |
| * If a social object falls in a forest and there’s no one to record and comment on its passage, it doesn’t make a sound.
| |
|
| |
| * Social objects get cocooned in metadata, the who-what-when-how-much that describes frequency of access, the population doing the accessing, number of edits, when and how carried out and by whom, relative popularity, links, tags and so on.
| |
|
| |
| * By inspecting the metadata we learn about ourselves and about the organisation(s)"
| |
| (http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2011/02/27/social-objects-in-the-enterprise-part-3/)
| |
| | |
| | |
| =Discussion=
| |
| | |
| ==Social Objects in the Enterprise==
| |
| | |
| JP Rangaswami:
| |
| | |
| "We have to start thinking about social objects in the enterprise as having two primary purposes: to collect patterns, via the metadata generated around the social object; and to collect pattern recognisers, via the communities built around the social object.
| |
| | |
| Chris Locke, when I first met him over a decade ago, spent time explaining to me the importance of “organic gardening”, a catchall for the role played by interests other than work in building community amongst the people at work. What he said resonated with me, particularly with what I’d learnt from phenomena like the WELL.
| |
| | |
| People who congregate electronically around digital social objects form relationships with each other as a result of that congregation; there are birds-of-a-feather-like effects, the bringing together of people with similar interests, though not necessarily similar views on those interests.
| |
| | |
| These people who are brought together tend to avoid the herd-instinct problem primarily because of this, the tendency to congregate around interests rather than views on the interests. Politics rather than the red-or-blue of party politics. Football rather than the red-or-blue of Manchester or Liverpool. Religion rather than the red-or-blue of Catholic or Protestant. Technology rather than the red-or-blue of Google or Microsoft.
| |
| | |
| Because they come together with a commonality of interest but a diversity of views, the likelihood of Linus’s Law increases: Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. So when such people collaborate, the quality of collaboration tends to be high.
| |
| | |
| Then, when you bring in the Clay Shirky concept of “cognitive surplus”, the potential for radical change in the enterprise emerges. People working together to correct the raw data and information bases that underpin the technical infrastructure of the firm, the extended enterprise, the market, the economy.
| |
| | |
| Social objects will also themselves become repositories of metadata related to relationships and information flows and collaborative activity, increasing the amount of information available about the actors and activities, and thereby reducing the likelihood of friction and tension between collaborators a la Gregory Benford’s Law : passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available."
| |
| (http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2011/02/27/social-objects-in-the-enterprise-part-3/)
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| [[Category:Relational]] | |
| | |
| [[Category:Business]]
| |