Large organisations are starting to consider deploying an internal Facebook clone, in their quest for Enterprise 2.0. This article considers what you need to achieve this, and how far you can get with Atlassian Confluence.
What does Facebook actually do? Here is a high-level overview of its core functionality.
If you consider how the applications work, then it becomes clear that the core functionality is to manage your profile and friends list, and to search and browse friends and groups; everything else is an application that uses this data.
The interesting thing about Facebook's social functionality is that if you find it useful, and do not think that it is 'just for kids', then it is fairly obvious how the same functionality would be useful within a large organisation. After all, employees are people too. Some of them might even be your friends.
There are some differences in functionality, once you translate it to the enterprise, although these are mostly cosmetic.
Confluence is a commercial enterprise collaboration platform that is based on a wiki. You can purchase for installation in your own organisation, or subscribe to a hosted version. The ideal way to use Confluence is as the platform for an organisation's intranet, for any size of organisation.
If you want to deploy your own 'staff network', the Facebook software is not available so you need to buy or build something else. Since we use Confluence as our intranet wiki, it is natural to consider how much of the staff network functionality it supports without additional development.
On the face of it, Confluence, along with a few plugins, combine to allow you to deploy most Facebook functionality within your organisation. However, the weakest area is the list of friends, which is the central concept of Facebook: all of the other functionality is implemented in terms of the friends list. Following other users is a recent edition to Confluence, in version 3, and has not yet been integrated with other functionality.
This means that equivalent functionality works differently in Confluence. This raises the fundamental question of whether an enterprise-Facebook absolutely requires permissions based on 'friends lists', for example, or whether this is unnecessary within a company, where people are already grouped into formal departments and teams. The answer is probably that it does, given that ad-hoc groups may well be more important than the official organisation.
Social networking features are all the rage in collaboration software, and other enterprise collaboration platforms are no-doubt adding social networking features. However, a few tacked-on marketing features do not necessarily make a useful social platform: you may end up with a poorly-integrated attempt to reproduce Facebook, albeit with the advantage of using established off-the-shelf software.
At least this is less bad than collaboration platforms that seem to be based around proprietary office-suite documents, such as the various Sharepoint products, or suites that seem to have no central information type and are instead a more complex everything-platform.
Confluence's social features are indeed well-designed and useful, but the application remains a wiki whose functionality is all based around 'pages', not around 'friends'. This means that there is real benefit to be had from using it as a social collaboration platform within an organisation, rather then 'merely' as a wiki, but the resulting experience is a less me-focused experience than Facebook.
For now, this does not really matter and is as good as it gets. Besides, perhaps large organisations are not ready to give up their assumption of a top-down hierarchical org-chart and acknowledge that each individual employee works with a network of concentric circles of trusted colleagues with himself at the centre.
Peter Hilton is a senior software developer at Lunatech Research.
Please send comments on this article to editorial@lunatech.com.
Copyright © 2005-2012, Lunatech Research B.V. Tous droits réservés.