I have been defining a social application as “the appropriate social software technology applied to a well defined purpose that delivers business value by enabling a target community”. I do this to distinguish between providing a generic social software tool and delivering a specific social application solution using a tool.

For example, Salesforce.com Ideas is a general idea engine social software tool whereas Dell’s Idea Storm is a specific software application (e.g., for Dell to gather product innovation ideas). I know the term isn’t perfect but it is important to distinguish between a general tool and a specific application of that tool to deliver a solution to a business challenge\opportunity.

Maybe social software solution is a better term but that also comes with baggage. What do you think?

I like your post — a lot. I am having heartburn with the language the industry is using, however, because I think it’s misleading. In your title, you observe that “Social Applications Change the Traditional Buy vs. Build Equation”.

Not true. It’s the cost/difficulty of building a community you can manipulate that’s changing the buy/build trade-off.

This term “social applications” is so misleading. There are software tools (applications) that support/facilitate/augment various social processes (i.e., social process support). But we have the processes with or without the software (except that some communities would never reach critical mass without exploiting the Internet).

The thing to focus on is the social processes — what they are, how to exploit them, what value they bring and how technology can potentiate their effects.

Anyhow, nice post…