Q&A with Peter Coffee on Social Apps - Adding Value or Disruptive?

This week I attended a presentation by Peter Coffee at a Salesforce.com partner event in California and had a chance to ask Peter a question. I have been a fan of Peter's writing for a long time so I was looking forward to his keynote speech. Peter did not disappoint. He made some interesting points contrasting the different approaches towards the "cloud" by Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Force.com. Peter contrasted the idea of providing "services" in the cloud versus providing "platforms" in the cloud.

Are we just moving the same problems somewhere else? Is Force.com really doing something different? Interesting food for thought but I honed in on something Peter said toward the end of his presentation. He wrapped up with three recommendations: (1) Don't ride a Unicorn, (2) Don't feed a Minotaur, and (3) Don't be Antisocial. You might think the Unicorn and Minotaur would get my attention, but his third point got most of my interest.

Peter: New systems should be social. They should initiate conversation based on what you are doing. They are not just waiting for you to ask them what to do.

Peter wrapped up his presentation, but this thought resonated in my head. Should an application start conversations? I like to get alerts when I have a task due, but do I want my software suggestions new tasks? Sounds interesting, but I'm not all convinced. So during the Q&A session I had to ask this question:

Conrad: At the office, we have all experienced the neighbor that tries to peek over the wall and start a conversation when we are really focused in the middle of a task. How does a social app balance between starting social conversations based on what I am doing and becoming a pest with unwanted obtrusive interruptions?

Peter: Good question. We are very concerned about creating apps that improve productivity. We have found that many users find the new paradigm less intrusive than paradigms like email. In social apps you usually subscribe to content you are interested in with actions like pressing the "Like" button on interesting content. In the email paradigm you are pushed content that you did not ask for. We have seen email go down as much as 40% in organizations that have shifted the way they distribute content internally.

Peter gave a few more examples, but I was not completely convinced.

Do you agree with Peter or do you also share my concern? Do we want our applications starting conversations? Or is this just a new type of virtual solicitor at my virtual door?

 

Comments

[Todd Roark]

There are many variables at play in regarding the efficacy of applying the concepts of social media to the work environment. Personal preference is of them. I like a lot of unbroken attention to get things done; however, I notice that not everyone is like me. Some, especially younger members, seem much more able, if not, demanding "distractions". Here's an interesting article regarding attention related trends: http://nymag.com/news/features/56793/.

Attempting to factor out preference, and in some cases, addiction, for the moment, it would seem that social media concepts have potential for improving the effectiveness of work which requires interaction. Nevertheless, a work based social network sounds like an oxymoron. I favor the term collaborative network coined by Oliver Marks according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_network.

Regarding the concern that social media may be like a neighbor peeking over the wall to start a conversation, I think the reverse may be more likely. I can very easily ignore electronic social media. The same cannot usually be said of an actual visitor. Thus if there is concern over the ability of maintain a span of unbroken focus on some task, collaborative networks (social media) may provide relief by allowing you to block your time by choice.