Of course, it is rare for any enterprise to be entirely self-sufficient so our value chains are usually forged from an intricate mesh of internal and external contributions.

Where the external linkages are formalised, say by contractual relationships and clearly defined service levels, it may be somewhat easier to gauge the mettle of our partnerships.

However, the internal workings of our own organisation are generally predicated on a presumption of willing and active participation, or collaboration. A reasonable presumption, for sure. And particularly one that most stakeholders will take as a ‘given.’

But how often is this presumption of internal collaboration truly warranted?

Do we always pull together, in the same direction? Or do we sometimes get distracted, disjointed and disconnected beneath the waterline?

Collaboration is a worthy aspiration and one which we might expect as achievable. However, I am sure we have all encountered enterprises where external collaboration initiatives quickly founder upon the millstones of weak internal collaboration.

You may also like to read:

• The Irrational Enterprise
• Eleven keys for aligning IT with business strategy
• Enterprise Aliens

I’m thinking more about how Google+ might play well with public networks, such as Twitter and LinkedIn, in conjunction with multiple [private] membership organisation architectures.

Chris Brogan has also been given some thought to the potential of Google+ and his list of 50 things about G+ is well worth a read.

We are all members of multiple systems and Google+ could make it easier for us to manage and grow our connectivity. I’ve got high hopes for G+ and can’t wait to get hands-on.

You may also like to read:

• Give the infant space

Quite simply, Twitter is a great example of a genuinely emergent, multi-purposed System that has developed exponentially, due to the ingenuity of subscribers and regardless of the apparent absence of any coherent commercial strategy.

Politicians and business leaders are now taking due notice of Twitter and I suspect that few, if any, would now be as dissmissive of the medium as David Cameron speaking on Absolute Radio in July 2009:

Twitter knows few boundaries and tweets easily skip over many traditional gatekeepers, before you can say Mark Zuckerberg

You may also like to read:

• three years on the helter skelter

Tony’s article sets out a new IT supplier strategy, based on flexible very short term contracts designed to give public sector CIOs the option of changing suppliers at the drop of a hat.

I look forward to seeing more details of the strategy. However, my initial reaction to the description in Tony’s article, is that there are serious flaws associated with the concept of letting short-term/ instant monthly contracts on a per user/month basis.

This would be fundamentally flawed because of the practical issues of chopping and changing services, with large volumes of data involved, let alone any contingent security concerns.

But we must realise that there would be substantial cost and unnecessary risk involved in such flipping.

Of course, the idea of switching suppliers for poor service is attractive but some performance issues do need time to resolve and the potential discontinuity of service would open the door to diminished accountability when problems arise, possibly on both sides.

It always takes two to tango so I am very concerned that this new Government strategy does not reflect the necessary bi-lateral commitment to mutually beneficial outcomes. The threat of losing a contract within weeks is not conducive to effective resourcing of essential IT services by the providers.

I am not endorsing poor service, or long lock-ins either. But taxpayers and IT pros deserve better and properly joined-up-management, especially in straitened times like these.

Working with a gun against your head is not a recipé for effective partnership.

You may also like to read:

• Cost of Government IT is a smoke-screen
• CxOs get caught in the crossfire
• Every CIO’s Guide to Demonstrably Outstanding Performance