Anthony J. BradleyA post in my colleague Tom Austin’s blog caught my attention. It is a quick take on Andrew MacAfee’s E2.0 Bullseye Model of strong and weak ties.
In my experience there are a few big flaws in his bullseye model. First, it is an oversimplification (which admittedly fits well in a blog post and easy to digest graphic) of relationships. There should be a mention of unbalanced relationships (which should be a goal of many E2.0 implementations). For example, with my blog I hope to build strong ties between them and me (meaning they feel they know me well) but a very weak tie between me and them (I may not know them at all). This delivers the coveted leverage that E2.0 can deliver. It also doesn’t distinguish between direct and indirect ties and the different behavioral dynamics of interactions (familiarization, handoffs, positioning, shared contribution, transactions, etc.) which have a greater impact on delivering an effective social solution. Third, I have not seen an exclusive relationship between the nature of the technology and the nature of the tie. The relationship is more between the nature of the implementation (purpose) and the tie.
I’m struggling to find the utility of the model. If its utility is to help enterprises choose a social software technology based on the strength of the tie then I think it significantly misses the mark (pun intended).
I also responded in his blog but it is moderated so I’m not sure if it will see the light of day 
Comments Off
Category: social applications Tags: social applications, strategy
