Self-created gotchas in collaboration implementation


Based on recent interviews with thought leaders across the collaboration and social enterprise spaces, I’ve identified several places where collaboration software may be creating more friction than facilitation for customers. Sometimes friction results from vendor product quirks, but often it comes from customer choices made during acquisition, deployment, or adoption.

Some of the collaboration software issues reported include:

  • Under-investment in collaboration software adoption, including:
    • Failure to provide time for people to think about how to effectively use the new capabilities the software provides
    • A lack of investment in transforming work processes that could be radically improved, but that falls outside of whatever problem the organization was trying to solve when it acquired the software
  • Duplicated features from the same or different vendors; e.g., multiple instances across an organization of real-time communications or enterprise social networks
  • Inadequate training on features and functions of the technology, as well as how to think about integrating it with particular use cases
  • A lack of work design to help align tools with particular functions, or even whether a tool is intended for that use

In the premise of my book, Management by Design, I suggest that too often, we just let work happen to us. And that seems to be what takes place in all but the most isolated collaboration implementations, those conducted by outstanding companies with a very clear focus on improving collaboration in general, or those who have invested in order to solve a very particular problem.

I have put together a brief survey that is designed to gather customer perspectives about these issues and others.  Please take a few moments to take the survey so I can include your opinions and your insights in an upcoming report. Click here to launch the survey.

(Please note, the results of this survey will be freely available. This survey captures no personal information).

Comments are closed.