Choosing well-designed lightweight tools is a valid strategic choice, isn’t it?

I have less and less patience for arguments against E2.0 based on vague ‘security’ concerns. If the US Intelligence community thinks the benefits of more information sharing outweigh the risks, so should most other organizations.

The more I learn about Enterprise 2.0, the more inclined I am to encourage companies to throw caution to the wind: buy (or build) some well-designed lightweight tools that take advantage of emergence and game mechanics, find a few leaders willing to lead by example, and go live. Do you find this advice too cavalier? Is my high-level plan missing any critical steps?

To reframe this slightly, my question is: Why isn’t choosing “well-designed lightweight tools” considered a valid strategic response?


2 thoughts on “Choosing well-designed lightweight tools is a valid strategic choice, isn’t it?

  1. I agree that it should be considered valid. The counterargument is probably something like this, pretending I’m a CIO at a company about to make an E2.0 purchase:I dont’ want expensive, awkward integrations between systems so I want to choose a ‘suite’ vendor that covers all the bases. I can’t clearly define my goals and what functions are needed to support those goals, so buying the does-it-all tool means I can’t be wrong (or worse, get fired). So I’ll buy Jive or something like that, even though 1/2 the modules will (or should) go unused, and the learning curve might be a bit steeper than it would be for something lightweight.

  2. I hear what you are saying, but I don’t entirely agree. Workforce collaboration suites, like Jive, are certainly more medium-weight than light, but certainly aren’t heavy weight – I tend to think in terms of total effort of deployment. If you want, you can still move very quickly with a suite even if you don’t realise the value of that investment immediately (and again, I think that’s a strategic choice too). Really, it comes back to how you view the problem.

Comments are closed.