On one particular project, I worked with a man who was a true believer in Jive. Let’s call him Herbert. It didn’t bother him that the engagement numbers were low and confined to one small region, or that the tech was incompatible with the main platform.
He believed in Jive, and he was going to have it. Old Herbie fought unbelievably hard for it, and for that I give him respect – Jive was killed off twice, and each time he brought it back from the dead. Eventually, he got it included in the new deployment as a trial balloon in “social collaboration.”
The problem was, in fighting for his preferred platform, he alienated himself and fragmented the network. Users couldn’t easily find information and engagement suffered, while contributors didn’t know where to post information and so either didn’t, or had to do it twice. It was a big, multinational mess, caused by one man’s devotion to a tool.
Ironically, Herbie was shuffled off shortly after the deployment went live. He’d alienated too many people with his stubbornness. As for Jive? Technical infrastructure decisions are a little harder to change. I just heard that it’s finally being killed after the conclusion of the three-year trial Herbert fought so hard for.
After three years, how did it perform against the main platform?
- Cost: 25%
- Engagement: 1%
Not divine numbers, by any means, despite old Herbie sacrificing himself.
Like for any other task, tools should be selected according to functionality, not dogma.