Indeed, my premise is that it is process both creating it and relying on it that is the major cause of barriers for people who WANT to do business with us.

Social tools, just like any other tools, are means to the ends. All I am suggesting is to define the ends prior to engaging tools.

I agree that process designed for efficiency should be re-assessed, but without a process one cannot offer consistent customer experience with any product or service.

2.0 or any next number will not remove the reliance on a process or removes necessity for profitability, i.e. investment/cost management.

The problem with this conversation starts with the word “process”. The first thing that 2.0 requires is to separate a focus on “work” from “process”. This frees us up to see work differently.

2.0 is an approach of simplification…with tools to support it. 2.0 abhors process as algorithm (save for where machine-like efficiency makes sense for thruput — where REAL process is meaningful). EVERY process needs to be assessed for the opportunity to redefine it as process as heuristic (see concepts http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2009/09/16/e2-0-unleashing-the-potential/)

Trying to align ROI to social tools is like attempting to justify providing phones or internet connections. It’s an infrastructure. If you want work done, you need the means for it to flow on some infrastructure. 2.0 is about eliminating workflow and providing infrastructural mechanisms for flowing work.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by piplzchoice: Commentary on “Why Process barfs on Social” – http://b2l.me/93p9 @bobwarfield…