Measuring information system quality, from the past to the present

The assessment of information system in the organisation is not well established and the studies show that more research is needed (DeLone & Mclean, 1992; Clark, 1992; Saunders & Jones, 1992; Wells & Wilkes, 1988 ). The IS performance and the organisational performance should be equally and carefully exploreAlso some of the roles of the IS function in the organisation are linked and can be subtle and difficult to measure (Crowton & Treacy, 1986; Niederman et al.). What is required for IS measurement framework is an assessment which connects the organisational performance to IS. The measurement should incorporate all the surrounding functions and factors in order to meet the need of both the organisation and customers.

Studies of IS assessment were initially focused on economic consideration(Ahituv, 1980; Bender, 1986Martin, 1979; the measurement focus shifted from efficiency, ie doing the things rightly, to effectiveness which is doing the right things McLean, 1973,B. Myers et tal, 1997.

Development of IS measurement.

The literature holds that Moad , 1993 presented a 3 by 3 matrix of IS framework for evaluating the IS functions (B. Myers et tal, 1997). Others have developed IS assessment framework (Dickson et al, 1988; Wells, 1987). However the most recent and comprehensive framework was developed by DeLone & McLean (1992) for IS multidimensional Model which was popular for measuring the complex IS ‘independent variable’. This model combines major previous IS Models theories and research studies to produce a multidimensional model called the D & M Success Model shown below in fig3.

Fig 3. D & M Success Model (DeLone & McLean, 1992)

In the IS model in fig 3 above there are 6 interrelated dimensions of information systems success, comprising  the system quality, information quality, service quality, use, user satisfaction, net benefits (DeLone & McLean, 1992). It is also noted that in this model the elements are interconnected and interrelated in their functions. According to Delone  & McLean the IS success Model the “Systems quality” measures the systems technical success. The “information quality” measures the semantic success and the rest of the 4 components; the “use, user satisfaction, individual impacts and organisational impacts” measure the effectiveness success.

There are 3 steps in the “temporal process” of the D & M model, comprising of the following: 1. creation of a rich information system which exhibits varying degrees of information quality; 2. Users of this system are categorised as satisfied or dissatisfied with the information; Thus the individual user is impacted by the use of the system and its information and these individual users collectively impact the organisation which results to certain conditions (DeLone & McLean, 1992)

Also a “causal model studies the covariance of the success relationship to determine if there is a causal relationship in the dimensions. This is whether higher system or information quality results to higher use and user satisfaction to impact the individual and finally the organisation positively or the other way round (DeLone & McLean, 1992). The D & M model establishes the relationships between the components of the models and indicating the interdependencies among the variables of the IS ( Seddon and Kiew, 1996) Also the causal chain is a rigid presumption that higher quality will result to greater satisfaction and impact. What of other environmental factors which affect both the customers and the business.

With this review we shall compare and modify our previous framework in fig 2 in order to accommodate all the prevailing factors and eliminate all the weaknesses. See the comparative view. Fig4.

DeLone, W., and McLean, E. Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3, 1 (1992),

Seddon, P.B. A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Research, 8, 3 (1997),

P.B., and Kiew, M.-Y. A partial test and development of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. In J.I. DeGross, S.L. Huff, and M.C. Munro (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems. Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems, 1994, pp. 99–110.30  DELONE AND MCLEAN

What is Information Systems quality and who beholds it?

In this blog we shall review our tentative Fig 1 model to define and include other parameters of the IS measurement model such as quality.

The word ‘quality’ is so frequently used, however its use is somehow ubiquitous, deep and enigmatic. ‘Quality’ is like beauty, it is said to be ‘in the eye of the beholder’. Quality is a comparative attribute or relative characteristics of things which may be observed to be good, bad or ugly; high, medium or low; big, average or small. Quality may be about things and also relative in the way it is observed and described by various people. Therefore we have to determine what is observed and understand its description or attributes in the eye of the observers. In this case there is a product to be observed by people.We have therefore derived some fundamental factors in the theme; that quality comprises of 3 major requirements, the product, the process of observation and the people to observe it. The fundamental questions are therefore, what is the product, how is it observed and who are the people observing.

Based on these questions above we shall analyse the various elements of the products and their qualities and the process of observation and those involved. In this we will also see the information system as a kind of product which comprise of other components. Also we shall understand how it could be observed and why it should be observed, perhaps because there are various misunderstanding and doubts, a kind of murky darkness which requires a brighter light and the need for observation. Also there are various people (the beholders) involved; perhaps the public, the government, the employers and employees ‘in whose eyes the beauty lay’. Finally we shall find how all these fragments of different composites and sub-components can be arranged systematically together as a structure or a framework resulting to a meaningful expression in thought and word from which further actions could be derived.

The overall questions narrows down to the ratings or grading or qualities of the various components of the information system which combine with certain qualities of the functions of business in the environment to produce certain qualities of output service. Therefore the output is a measure of all the qualities of the components which combine to result to a measurable output.

Therefore the system quality measure is equal to the resultant of all the measures of the various components of each system. The organisational quality + IS quality = output quality which also return to feed the other. This is shown in fig 2 below.

Fig 2. Quality components of the information system elements                                                             IS Interactive Componentsnew

Basic Building Blocks for Determining IS Services and Outputs.

In our previous blog we dis- assembled the various components involved in the measurement of IS management. These entities are further disassembled here and moulded into a certain visual structure which suggests a kind of pattern or suggestive interactive framework in their working relationship.

Narratively the environment comprise of business elements interacting with information systems to produce a certain quality of outputs? Therefore our building blocks will be derived from the following entities:

Environment: cultural, economic, political, demographic, regulatory and technological, consumers, competition etc.

As indicated above the environmental factors are physical, cultural, economic, political, demographic, regulatory and technological factors that affect the business (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/environmental-factors.html).

Organisation: planning, organising, staffing, directing, and controlling

Similarly, the management functions compose primarily of five basic functions which are utilised to accomplish the desired goals and objectives of the organisation. The management therefore comprise of planning, organising, staffing, directing, and controlling the people and the process in order to accomplish the desired goals of the organisation (Henri Fayol, 1841-1925) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayolism . To these 5 functions we shall add information system management as a factor of business management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management). All the above functions are targeted towards some desired goals and objectives which are measurable outputs.

Also the Information System comprises of people, process, IT artefacts.

The Output comprises of measurable values and other characteristics of different qualities

Without going into many details, these business functions have individual, interrelated and collective goals which are tied to the overall organisational mission. Therefore we shall formulate and analyse this integration and interrelationship of business functions and information technology functions in an environment.  Building these entities into a building a framework gives the visual impression shown below in Fig 1 below.

Fig. 1 A framework for the interaction of Information System and other entities in a business.

 

 

Developing a framework for management teams to determine the quality of their IS services and outputs.

We should begin the above topic by selecting the basic components and differentiating them into primary constituents. The question requires us to derive a framework (basic structure or building blocks) for management to measure the Information System Quality (ISQ). Usually the Information System and the organisation are intermingled to produce measurable outputs in the environment and the environment also feeds into the system. Therefore the various entities of the various systems have to be disassembled. This will result to some basic questions, such as:  What are the components of the organisation and what are the components of the information technology? How do they interact with themselves and how do they interact with the components of the environment. How do they produce measurable outputs? These questions are related to the narratives of the functions of the members or entities involved in the system. This system therefore comprise of the following; Information System, of an organisation, operating to produce a measurable (quality) output, which feeds back into the environment of people including customers and businesses including competitors.

We will try to understand the nature of the relationships between these entities. The relationships may be one-way relationship, mutual or two-way relationship or opposing relationship. We will also disintegrate these entities into their smaller composite parts. In this case we have to decompose the business organisation and the environment into various functions. Also we have to breakdown information systems into various components to derive a measurable output quality.

The following entities are now part of the requirements analysis for the framework:

Information System: comprising of people, process, IT artefacts

Organisation: comprising all the business functions

Output: comprising of various values and other measurable characteristics (of quality)

Environment: of people including consumers and business including competitors etc

Finally we will relate these major entities to derive a workable framework and to derive some measurable characteristics in their relationships.

Social Business Introducing Social Anarchy

As a concluding comment we want to highlight some obvious legal dilemma introduced by social business. It is obvious that there are new realms introduced by social business some of which are surprisingly posing curious questions. Every legal system operate within its  national boundary called jurisdiction and the laws govern the people in their conduct within the confines of this boundary. Contrary to this, social business is so pervasive and cuts across national boundaries and all manner of communication takes place across the various continents in a very easy fashion. Quite often people forget that they are dealing with others far away and the national laws may not provide an easy remedy, considering the differences which exist in the jurisdiction and in law. It is common these days to hear cases of coercion, harassment, bullying, incitement, abuse and insulting behaviour. These offences are interpreted differently in various countries and the laws do not exist universally to address these cases. However social media issues are essentially not restricted in terms of geographical location. The question arises then, “how would individuals or organizations pursue their legal concerns in relation to the social media cases”? This is a question confronting legal practitioners, businesses and individuals some of who do not know the true identities and location of the people they chat or communicate with on the social media.

There is a call for changes in both national and international legislation to address this gap in law. At present some individuals are seeking justice for the wrongful use of the media if they can apprehend the culprits. Also justice may be possible if they live within the same or related jurisdiction. Howeverv many crimes have gone unmentioned because the other party is out of reach or impossible to prosecute because of legal or geographic barriers. This is a great concern to social business and difficulty for the legal institutions including such bodies as the international police and the international court of justice.

How do you bring legal actions against individuals outside your legal jurisdiction. I think the global nature of social business and its implications may have to be dealt with outside the current limited snail speed legal jurisdictions of the courts. There are coplaints of sorts on the web, unattended cases and untraceable internet transactions are found on the internet. Unfortunately sometimes the suspect may be very far away on the other side of the diameter of the Earth, maybe 12756.2 kilometres away. This concern is growing and calls for justice wherever and whenever it is needed.  >> IROKOO

How Organizations adopt Social Business and the impact on Business

How Organizations adopt Social Business and the impact on Business

Our previous discussion illustrated that various methods exist for organizations in the adoption of social business. The adoption process which involves a social transformation from ‘business as it use to be’ to a new and complex social identity is a stormy decision for firms, they have to swim through or sink in its turmoil. This blog will round off the organizational adoption topic and conclude on the impact on business.

The motivation for an organization’s adoption of social business is born out of the stakeholders interests for value creation, including the business “growing and going” concern. The decision for social adoption is mainly strategic and involves the assessment and analysis of the business opportunities and challenges. The adoption process begins with the management function of planning during which the organization begins to identify the present position of the firm (where the firm is), and the future where the firm wants to go. The strategic choice determines the process “how” the Organization intends to achieve its plan. This adoption process is “people and technology” driven and determines the people “who” the organization wants to socially include and the media they intend to utilize.

The socialization strategy can be viewed in the context of the application of the “Management Functions” (Henri Fayol, 925). In the process the management integrates the “Social Media Attributes” with the “Business Functions” in order to realize a “Social Business”. The socialization process will therefore involve the organizational activities of Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Controlling, Directing and Evaluating in order to Integrate the Business Functions with the Social Media Attributes. Before going further in this direction let us review some steps in the adoption process and subsequently share some information available in the public domain to explain the social business adoption trends.

The 10 easy steps to social business

The “10 easy steps to becoming a social business” was posted on “Author’s blog” by Alan Hamilton (http://socialmediaclub.org/blogs/social-media-journal/becoming-social-business-10-easy-steps 2012). According to Alan this method is derived from IBM Alliance Conference in Boston, USA. It was presented by Sandy Carter (http://socialmediaclub.org/blogs/social-media-journal/becoming-social-business-10-easy-steps 2012)

Alan Hamilton’s interpretation expressed that organizations can achieve success in implementing enterprise social network (such as IBM connections) by adhering to some easy steps. According to Alan, successful Enterprise social network is achieved by;

*      Enhancing communication and collaboration in the company and embedding social technique in the business process.

*      Customizing social business experience in the organization by following a defined approach and standards.

*      Establishing a governing social policy, setting rules and guidelines.

*      Hiring Social Community Managers and establishing social job roles.

*      The approach should involve the interest and participation of the senior management team.

*      The enthusiasm of fluent and dominant participants should be utilized for social evangelism and advocacy.

*      Utilize materials such as videos and reports to communicate the social plan.

*      Provide mobile access through mobile phones and web browsers in order to engage and motivate.

*      The leader’s participation should involve mentoring.  One to one training for the leading senior members should provide excellent career opportunity for interested juniors to follow.

*      Use onboard analytic tools such as dashboard to demonstrate growth and success of the social process.

The above steps contain the concept of the management functions embedded in the keywords. However let us look at another formulation in the adoption of social business.

The 7 steps to social adoption

The steps below were derived from Richard Hughes (Director of product strategy at BroadVision, http://realbusiness.co.uk/advice_and_guides/seven-steps-to-social-business-success, 2012.

His steps are descriptions of some relevant phases in the adoption of social business.

These include to:

*      Formulate a social business team to follow a clear management decision and directive.

*      Form a committee to follow a planned strategy involving stake holder’s interest with defined guidelines..

*      Identify and establish relevant communities.

*      Provide examples of how networks can be harnessed

*      Encourage participation and provide insights into the objectives.

*      Drive adoption by utilizing compensation initiatives

*      Evaluate success by measuring usage and deploy key performance indicators.

*      Encourage continual improvement using metrics

These 2 sets of steps contain interrelated processes with some variations probably accounting for the differences in the organizational structure and strategy. However the key terms are based on the management functions which are composed of planning, organizing, staffing, controlling, directing and evaluating. These functions are the bedrock of the management in the adoption of the social media functions. The above factors which are contained for example in Alan Hamilton’s 10 easy steps

or in Richard Hughes 7 steps are essentially derived from the various management  functions which interact and integrate the business with social media attributes.

The adoption process follows a deliberate and managerial effort aimed to achieve some desired goal. Organizations are adopting social business purposefully for the some perceived benefits which we previously discussed.

Let us also refer to other type of reports and information regarding social business adoption and why organizations embrace social media.

Fig 1.0 below is a Social Media Framework by Beth Kanter taken from a website (http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2009/04/convergence-of-change-management-and-social-media.html). This framework identified some motivation for social adoption in 5 groups shown in colours.  Different reasons are associated to various groups for embracing social media according to the table. However these factors or reasons are similar to the steps outlined in the adoption process above. This makes this framework relevant to support our illustration for the various steps of the social business adoption which contain similar factors derived from the management functions.

Fig 1.0 Why people in organizations embrace social media (http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2009/04/convergence-of-change-management-and-social-media.html)

The above figure indicate successful social adoption process and experience with most people in the organizations showing interest if the management process of goal setting and motivation is followed. The adoption strategy is seen as “people and technology” driven while the organizations follow the trends.

The graph below (fig 2.0) gives further information about the rise in the use of social media by organizations.

In Fig 2.0 compares the world wide search volume on Google for “New Media”, “Web 2.0”, and “Social Media”.  The information in this graph is relevant because of the gradual and steady rise in the use of social media (indicated by the orange yellow graph)

Fig 2.0 Steady Rise in the use of social Media (http://socialfresh.com/social-media-is-the-3rd-era-of-the-web/ , 2012)

Fig 3.0 Extended graph suggests a further rise in adoption (http://socialfresh.com/social-media-is-the-3rd-era-of-the-web/ , 2012)

 According to socialtimes.com, fig 3.0 shows that “there’s reason to believe the social media era will last longer and have a higher peak”. Also what all of this means to business is that social business will drive innovation for the future as shown in the extrapolated graph. Although social business has drawbacks in terms implementation, management and use, however it is obviously an engine of business innovation which incorporates Adaptability, Empowerment, Agility, Smart Connectivity, Openness, and Active intelligence for value creation.

Companies may refuse “Social Business” but follow “Newton’s first law of Motion”.

Following an important question by blackbird333, it says – as many businesses might find adopting this concept of Social Business complex, do you think that this would make fewer companies adopt Social Business as the change from a business to a Social Business is a complex process? The answer is “NO”.

Companies which refuse social business may follow “Newton’s first law of Motion”.

More and more companies will continue to adopt social business to their own advantages because they have to.  Firms which refuse to adopt social business due to various internal and external factors causing them some “inertia” will obey Newton’s first law of motion which states that, “every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless impressed force acts on it.”

I think therefore, that some companies may continue to move forward until they are stopped by the socio-economic changes imposed by the environmental changes due to social business. In this case, a firm’s inability or refusal to adopt social business carries dare consequences because of the environmental transformation.  Therefore Firms must respond strategically if they want to continue business or render value to their stakeholders.

Remember some dreadful consequences which occurred in the sad death of the printed “Encyclopedia Britannica” during the emergence of the personal computers and the Internet (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/allanmassie/100061492/the-sad-death-of-the-encyclopaedia-britannica/).  This circumstance is also a reminder of the death of the Dinosaurs. The king of animals, the Dinosaur went extinct because of environmental transformation, perhaps, the geological changes in the Cretaceous era of the earth (http://www.lifestudiesonline.com/dinosaurs/extinct.htm).  In my opinion adopting social business may be a “swim or sink” scenario.  Although firms continue to experience inertia and exercise caution in their method of adoption, many are willing and are already adopting social business.

– IROKOO

How Businesses are Adopting Social Business Concept; ‘Adopt or adapt, swim or sink’ scenario.

How businesses are adopting Social Business Concept; ‘Adopt or adapt, swim or sink’ scenario.

In our previous blog we detailed how social media became the catalyst in the crazy rush for 7 million, present and future customers.  The aim of this blog is to begin a discussion on how businesses are adopting the concept of social business.

In this case companies are dealing with the Social Business relationship in a scenario where they have to adopt, adapt, swim or sink. This is a situation where Firms may decide to adopt -ie choose, accept and follow; otherwise they must adapt by adjusting, accommodating and conforming. However in our current scenario we are looking at the situations where companies are willing and ready to adopt  and the question is how it happens.

If we take any intimate relationship as an example, maybe intimate friendship or marriage in particular. This is ‘a coming together’ of two distinct individuals who may be simple or complex individuals. Therefore we derive a third condition which is entirely different from the first or second person. This analogy is similar to the social business adoption scenario. In this case the relationship of the Social to the Business is entirely an integration that creates a complete new scenario. We will look at this scenario in the context of the functions of a company merging with the attributes of the social media.  Although business organizations differ considerably in their forms or strategy, however we can identify certain functions which they usually have in common such as, Operations, Marketing, Finance, and Human Resources Management; (http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199296378/01student/additional/page_08.ht)

Presumably the process of adoption is the integration of these business functions and methods to the various attributes of the social media. The business functions and methods will integrate with the social media attributes which include Adaptability, Empowerment, Agility, Connection, Openness, Active intelligence etc, considering the six traits of social business by Sideraworks, http://www.sideraworks.com/our-approach/.  This is not simple mathematical integration, no permutation or combination; it is a complex business transition affecting and changing the way the company functions to create value for the stakeholders. Therefore the evolution from ‘business as it use to be’, to a social business is complex and includes significant organizational changes.

Therefore this decision begins from Planning which includes a consideration of social strategy, goal setting, culture, social structure, social technology, social training etc. Also the planning decision involves the participation or consideration of the various stakeholders.

Social Media Forums as “Business Catalysts”

Social Media Forums as “Business Catalysts”

 Social Media Forums are “business catalysts” for targeting prospective customers around the world

 Based on our previous communication on the blogs, it suggests that the foundation of the so called Social Business is founded on the use of Social Media. Therefore the analysis and understanding of the social media is the proper background upon which to establish our discussion of this contemporary business concept. We considered that Social Business concept is a derivative of businesses engaging the use of the various social media communities, and thus the coinage- social business. Also, let us take a view of the horizon of the social media forums and consider all the excitement and news about social business.

Social Business and the irresistible scramble for 7 billion customers

 According to Nicholas G. Carr, 2003, IT infrastructure is continually becoming a utility for companies because of its necessity and reduced cost. He opined that as the cost of the equipment and services fall, the acquisition and usage demand will rise. This suggests that the infrastructure of the social media will become more pervasive and ubiquitous, and the usage will continue to rise. This foretells that the Internet usage may be a highly demanded utility made essentially accessible to the prospective 7 billion population of this world, (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm).

It is presently recorded that this year, 2012 Anno Domini, the Network of communities of Internet users are more than 2 billion people, according to the information on WWW.internetWorldstats.com. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. (Refer to Table 1)

WORLD INTERNET USAGE AND POPULATION STATISTICS June 30, 2012 World Regions Population ( 2012 Est.) Internet Users Dec. 31, 2000 Internet Users Latest Data Penetration (% Population) Growth 2000-2012 Users % of Table Africa 1,073,380,925 4,514,400 167,335,676 15.6 % 3,606.7 % 7.0 % Asia 3,922,066,987 114,304,000 1,076,681,059 27.5 % 841.9 % 44.8 % Europe 820,918,446 105,096,093 518,512,109 63.2 % 393.4 % 21.5 % Middle East 223,608,203 3,284,800 90,000,455 40.2 % 2,639.9 % 3.7 % North America 348,280,154 108,096,800 273,785,413 78.6 % 153.3 % 11.4 % Latin America / Caribbean 593,688,638 18,068,919 254,915,745 42.9 % 1,310.8 % 10.6 % Oceania / Australia 35,903,569 7,620,480 24,279,579 67.8 % 218.6 % 1.0 % WORLD TOTAL 7,017,846,922 360,985,492 2,405,510,036 34.3 % 566.4 % 100.0 % NOTES: (1) Internet Usage and World Population Statistics are for June 30, 2012. (2) CLICK on each world region name for detailed regional usage information. (3) Demographic (Population) numbers are based on data from the US Census Bureau and local census agencies. (4) Internet usage information comes from data published by Nielsen Online, by the International Telecommunications Union, by GfK, local ICT Regulators and other reliable sources. (5) For definitions, disclaimers, navigation help and methodology, please refer to the Site Surfing Guide. (6) Information in this site may be cited, giving the due credit towww.internetworldstats.com. Copyright © 2001 – 2012, Miniwatts Marketing Group. All rights reserved worldwide.

Table 1 ( above), The World Internet Usage and Population Statistics, June30, 2012.

Reading from the table 1 above, there are approximately 2.5 billion Internet users which represent about 36% of people on the planet Earth. It has an average population growth of 47.2% yearly. This suggests that, the social media is an essential catalyst for success in the modern day business. It is the right link to the world for the burgeoning business community, increasingly accessible on YouTube.con, or Facebook, Wikipedia, LinkedIN, Tweeter, and so many IT Companies.

Next we shall consider the attributes of Social Business as an integration of business functions and Social Media attributes. We shall consider the resulting factors  of social business in order to understand how businesses are adapting the concept.

What is Social Business; what is Social Media?

What is Social Business; what is Social Media?

 Searching for a definition which is beyond ‘a social objective’

At this point we have all accepted to set aside the traditional definition of social business as an entity designed to address a ‘social objective’, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_business). We have set this aside in order to pursue a more contemporary use of the phrase in a commercial sense and as a coinage of the internet media age.

A commentator on the social business forum (http://www.socialbusinessforum.com/what-is-social-business/) comments that social business is like an organism adapting to its environment and consciously re-calibrating itself based on its intercepted stimuli. Please refer to the website for an illustration depicting this explanation at http://www.socialbusinessforum.com/what-is-social-business/

That illustration depicts social business as an optimization of the inherent synergy in the social business environments. However we are to proceed from a more fundamental perspective to explain our understanding of Social business.

Social Business as a contemporary derivative of the ‘social’ and ‘business’

Perhaps we could see Social Business as a derivative of these composite words ‘social’ and ‘Business’. Social in this instance is seen in the context of human characteristics of communal living, as in friendly social gathering or interaction of people in the form of communities. Similarly, business can be seen as an enterprise or organization engaged in the creation of value (goods, services or both) targeted at consumers for profit. Taking the two words together we may say that social business is an enterprise engaged in the creation of value which optimizes its operation by linking with communities of the social media. Therefore defining social business brings us to the question – ‘what is social media’?

The meaning of Social Media is an imperative for defining Social Business.

‘Media’ in this instance signifies ‘means, or platform’ of human communication or social interaction. This refers to the platforms such as internet technology as a network of communities of people. Therefore social media are the topologies or platforms which people utilize, such that they communicate or interact or socialize as communities. While social business is the method of utilizing the social media thereby engaging the network of communities to participate in business.  Functionally speaking, I would define social business as ‘business that utilizes social media as a platform in its collaboration’. Therefore we ask, ‘are businesses such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Amazon ‘ rightly referred to as ‘social businesses? At the basic ‘yes’,  however most of these companies are IT infrastructure companies hosting the network oh communities, and are therefore social media enterprises. These are IT firms sustaining the existence and interaction of the internet social communities, in addition they explore and poach on the communities which they host, using them for further benefits. Therefore these are social media enterprises which are also involved in social businesses.  This statement returns to my previous assertion that, while communities enjoy the electronic forums sustained by social media, the businesses which sustain them also poach on their presence for further commercial benefits (https://sopinion8ed.wordpress.com/author/irokoo/).

Readers are welcome to comment or present critical opinion on the subject matter of social business.

Thank you.  IROKOO