http://blogs.gartner.com/tom_austin/2009/01/05/an-alternate-view-of-macafees-social-ties-model/ A member of the Gartner Blog Network Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:55:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 http://blogs.gartner.com/tom_austin/2009/01/05/an-alternate-view-of-macafees-social-ties-model/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Andrew MacAfee’s E2.0 Bullseye Model Misses the Mark Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:49:07 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/tom_austin/2009/01/05/an-alternate-view-of-macafees-social-ties-model/#comment-28 [...] post in my colleague Tom Austin’s blog caught my attention. It is a quick take on Andrew [...] [...] post in my colleague Tom Austin’s blog caught my attention. It is a quick take on Andrew [...]

]]> http://blogs.gartner.com/tom_austin/2009/01/05/an-alternate-view-of-macafees-social-ties-model/comment-page-1/#comment-27 Anthony Bradley Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:34:17 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/tom_austin/2009/01/05/an-alternate-view-of-macafees-social-ties-model/#comment-27 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 distiguish 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. 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 distiguish 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.

]]>