The benefits of VisiCalc go beyond its humble origins as calculating paper. It represents a way of using computers that allows the user to ask 'what if' questions that would be too tedious to carry out by hand. Not only are such questions important in planning, they can be vital to the user in learning and coming to understand his own application.

Both the words 'serendipity' and 'synergy' are appropriate for VisiCalc. As VisiCalc evolved it showed us how effective personal computers can be as streamlined interactive tools. But, VisiCalc was not simply a lucky extrapolation of the basic ideas. Both authors of VisiCalc have extensive background in using large mainframes as personal computers and in creating systems to be used by large numbers of people with little training. Word processing background was of special importance since it provided experience in designing screen-based, highly interactive interfaces. More important for VisiCalc, it made us very aware of the need for a carefully designed and tuned user interface. This interface was constantly refined during the development process.

via frankston.com

I hadn't seen this paper by Bob Frankston before - presented in 1979 it introduced the world to a new fangled idea: the Visicalc spreadsheet. Apparently there weren't a lot of people around to hear the original presentation of this paper, but it is worth reading retrospectively. Diffusion of this innovation was slow to gather momentum, but some people could see the potential.

Why is this worth mentioning?

The personal computer it seams was a solution looking for a problem and the idea for Visicalc came from an idea for improving how individual people currently worked on tedious calculation tasks, rather then affecting the bottom line of a business. I particularly appreciate that the creators of Visicalc thought carefully about how users would interact with it and other software they already used (bearing in mind the limitations of the hardware at the time). In the end Visicalc didn't completely kill off the idea of either prepackaged solutions for personal computers or enterprise systems, but it is hard to imagine any business today where spreadsheets aren't still considered to be a critical tool. In many instances you could even argue that spreadsheets are more critical than any of the large, complex systems of record that many organisations invest in.

From this perspective, I can't but help draw parallels with social software and wonder if its a good idea that all enterprise tools have to solve single quantifiable problems?

BTW if you prefer, you can watch a 2009 re-reading of the paper by Bob Frankston - part 1 and part 2. You can find more Visicalc history on Dan Bricklin's site.

Hat tip David Weinberger.

"The mobile experience we have today is basically designed for tech-savvy businessmen," says designer Amid Moradganjeh. This is a mistake, he thinks. There is another group of people out there, a bigger group. They have an "average digital life," meaning that they don’t have to process hundreds of emails a day while running from meeting to meeting. While many of them do have a rich digital existence on the desktop, they see little need to stay fully connected when they go outside. One explanation for this is that smartphones simply haven’t become cheap enough and that, inevitably, we’ll all come to own one. Moradganjeh wonders if for many people an iPhone/Android smartphone is too complicated and too much power. For his thesis project, he engaged in a program of research and speculative design which resulted in Rimino, "an attractive, invisible and more integrated experience."

Rimino - A Human Touch on Mobile Experience from Amid Moradganjeh on Vimeo.

The Rimino concept might not be exactly right, but shows why thinking about user experience design from the perspective of different users is so powerful.

Kelli Carlson-Jagersma... social strategy team at Wells Fargo... [says they are]

...expending the bulk of its efforts on identifying use-cases for internal social networking tools and running small pilots in the enterprise to test different solutions and learn what benefits social can bring to the enterprise.

"It's not so much focusing on the tools as the use-cases," said Carlson-Jagersma. "What I mean by that is, what is this problem we are trying to solve? Unless we make it a lot easier for people to do their jobs, or create so much efficiency in the work they're already doing, or somehow integrate communications, having a tool such as NewsGator or Chatter or Jive just adds more noise or something more for us to have to do. So, right away we've been taking a step back and looking at the use-case."

One use-case Wells Fargo is considering is in the area of support centers. "With our service and support operations located all over our geographic footprint, we need to be able to collaborate virtually. We are evaluating current business processes and how can we use social tools to enhance collaboration--not replace what we're doing, but make it more connected and even more efficient." she said.

Carlson-Jagersma added that once the business needs have been identified, only then will her team consult with the business and pilot a social networking tool--or tools, because a combination of solutions is being considered--to implement companywide.

"I think of using social as a way of work, not just as a shiny new tool and something fun."

Kelli Carlson-Jagersma from Wells Fargo talks about their need led approach to workforce collaboration and evaluating software options. Nice to see this approach being championed, although isn't this how everyone approaches internal social business software projects?

Created with local and regional governments in mind, although I'm sure it has broader application, this toolkit is the outcome of a partnership between two European design firms and Design Flanders.

You need to buy the toolkit, but they have made some posters and templates available for download.

Hat tip to the Putting People First blog.

This video is a promo for a new'ish book, This is Service Design Thinking, but it provides a nice short explanation of what service design is about. Hat tip to Anel Palafox.

An interesting interview with Peter Gill, from Technology One, who talks about the importance of putting users in control and iteration when implementing... no, not enterprise social software... but business intelligence software.

Its not actually that surprising to hear that a user-centred approach also works in this context - I'm more surprised (and refreshed) to hear a vendor outside of the social business software domain talking in these terms. From my perspective, business intelligence is a knowledge activity and the social business design archetypes (connections, culture, communication and clarity) are equally applicable to this business need.

Pity its taken the BI industry so long to learn this (and this is me speaking from my own experience of trying to 'rescue' BI projects that have gone wrong in the past).

BTW Also worth a listen, Mark Jones covered social media and consumer driven technology in the enterprise in podcasts earlier in the year.

Mark Gilbert from Gartner spoke at the Gartner BI summit in Sydney recently. He said that firms shouldn't deploy collaboration software "out of the box" - I disagree, but I disagree because I'm being pedantic, although I think it is important to be so given this is a Gartner person speaking.

Overall, I think Michael is right to be pedantic. What I'm not clear from Gilbert's statement is that when he talks about the need to adapt collaboration (and social software), is he talking about actual developed customisations or customisations achieved through configuration and user-generated information architecture.

However, Gilbert also mentions SharePoint - and that does complicate things, because of the way I typically see SharePoint deployed, which is with little thought. If we read "out of the box" SharePoint to mean, you've just finished installing the software, switched it on, and announced job done then I can understand why Gilbert might be concerned.

Does this argument hold for enterprise social computing tools? It depends. Architecturally speaking, other "pure" tools of this type (by which I mean, are designed to be or have specific heritage in social software) typically have a greater resilience for dealing with organic and emergent usage. However, I would also encourage people to design for adoption anyway, remaining open to exploring customisation through both development and configuration based on user's and business needs.

Bringing me back to the beginning... you can *sometimes* deploy out of the box. But even while that might be the end of your technical activities, its only the start of the project.

BTW You can come and debate this with Michael and I at the Intranets2011 conference, where we are both presenting.

Despite the possibilities for collaboration, a Design News survey reveals engineers are avoiding social networks due to concerns around security and irrelevant information overload... Even joining engineering-specific groups on LinkedIn or Facebook resulted in a whole lot of noise and useless chatter, respondents reported, as opposed to serving up focused, practical solutions to real-world engineering problems. "It turns out a lot of the discussions turn esoteric or philosophical and are not really things I found to be useful in the day-to-day functioning of the business or my day-to-day engineering efforts," says survey respondent David Willis, PMP, engineering group manager for Agile Engineering Inc., a manufacturer of precision electromechanical systems. "Even though I was in focused areas, there was no focus."

Design News is a journal for engineers and engineering managers who build real world products. Apparently many are disappointed with their experience of using social networks for collaboration. Not surprisingly, they want collaboration embedded in their work processes. Traditional forums and instant messaging appear to be more immediately useful.

Honestly, I'm not surprised. If you are going to apply social technologies to a situation without considering the specific needs of the people involved, what do you really expect?

This build it and they will come mentality also underplays the importance of a range of different skills needed to run a successful community of practice or virtual team. Sure, they'll come but they won't hang around for long if they don't get value from participation.

Hat tip to Bertrand.