I was having a conversation with timeXchange’s Joe Piekarz today about social applications and how difficult it is to define it.
By the way if you haven’t heard of timeXchange, go check it out. timeXchange is a free online timekeeping solution that allows employees, independent contractors to enter and submit their time for approval to whoever needs to see them (a manager, the payroll department, client…and when I said “whoever,” it’s really “whoever” you set it up to be) so that you can get your paycheck. And isn’t that what it’s all about?
By Web2.0 definition timeXchange is what you would call a true social application. “Social” because it gives you the tool to easily invite other users to help you do whatever it is that you’re trying to do. And on the case of timeXchange, you’re trying to get paid for your work.
If you read TechCrunch or know who Robert Scoble is, you probably didn’t need that explanation. I don’t know what percentage of timeXchange’s target users (anyone who needs to keep track of time worked so that they can get paid and wants to be able to do it online…hmm…a majority of the white collar employed population?) fall under this category, but in the larger scale of things and I mean outside of the web industry, that’s probably a small number.
To those outside of the Web2.0 circle, “social applications” probably doesn’t go beyond MySpace and Facebook. “Social” = “Play” Which is a big problem if you’re trying to introduce “social applications” to the enterprise. “You want me to be social and use a wiki?”
I have no idea how the term “social” became the norm, but I think the more accurate word to describe these applications is “collaborative.” Is it because the social aspect of the application is what enables teams to collaborate? But how do you collaborate if you’re not social? You can be social and not collaborate, but you have to be social to collaborate. Therefore I think the word “collaboration” or “collaborative” is a more targeted and a much easier to explain word to describe apps like wikis blogs, del.icio.us, and timeXchange. Heck. I can even say LinkedIn and Facebook is collaborative because I’m collaborating with my network to increase my business contacts, find leads, jobs, expertise, etc.
So there’s my epiphany for today, courtesy of Joe. From now on I’m using the adjective “collaborative” instead of “social.” I just wish we had the conversation sooner, because that sure could’ve saved me a lot of time and breath and effort explaining the word social.
Update: The timeXchange blog also has a post about this topic.
August 30, 2007 at 12:01 am |
[...] by simulating market conditions in a MMOG via social collaboration (they say social networking but I really think the word collaborate is more accurate). It sounded to me like Cambrian House at first, however how this is different and how this stood [...]
January 8, 2008 at 6:00 pm |
[...] came with tools to make it easier to do, yes. But more importantly, Web2.0 tools are social. And by social, I mean collaborative. They enable connections so that those connections can [...]
June 8, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
8 June 2009 – TimeXchange.net has improved its commerce and collaboration network for people who work in virtual project teams reporting. Version 3.0 was launched last week and includes a simplified navigation and new features such as a timer for project tasks and a more robust tracking of time submitted for approval. Version 3.0 was launched last week and includes a simplified navigation and new features such as a timer for project tasks and a more robust tracking of time submitted for approval. Additional third-party affiliates with tools such as mobile companion devices were also announced. Additional third-party affiliates with tools such as mobile companion devices were also announced.