I used the word "daft" in a post by Johnnie Moore about three or four weeks ago that referenced an earlier version of this blind spot of Davenport's .. but if someone keeps returning to that blind spot, "stupid" can work as well.

But don't you know .. knowledge work is very similar to the way Taylor saw work roughly a century ago .. the sequential list of tasks that start at 9h00 on a Monday morning, parceled out in clearly defined one-after-the-the-other chunks, all coming to a halt exactly at 17h00 late Friday afternoon ... with no access to the Internet during the weekdays so that you won't lift your head up from those tasks, as your productivity keeps increasing through the use of more reusable knowledge and intellectual assets .. etc.

Very little room for imagination, insights, interaction, conversations that explore problems and so on .. just gets in the way.

Thank you for this post. At the risk of seeming sychophantic, it is enormously affirming for an unknown like me to discover that someone with your clout and reputation thinks similarly on this issue. There are times when I feel like the voice in the wilderness, so it's always a huge relief to discover that not only am I not alone - I'm in pretty impressive company!

Given the assertive stance of my previous comment, and after reading Davenport's post, I feel compelled to note that when reading the one Johnnie pointed to (which was about Facebook) and this one, each time i was left with the impression that Tom D. segments and compartmentalizes well. I think a careful reading perhaps offers the perspective that he almost automatically says to himself "what is the specific purpose of this tool ?" and then addresses himself to that.

if that is indeed the case, I can see his logic. I have not yet read anything he has written about the principles, purpose(s), more general dynamics, effects and outcomes of (let's call it) social computing.

If he were to port the same logic to that purpose rather than the specific purpose of a LinkedIn (and I think I agree with him that the use of LinkedIn is at best minimalist "social networking") or a Facebook, then I'd go back to the "daft" or "stupid" judgments.

Thanks Karyn - but you are far from alone!

Jon - I think you are right about Tom. If you read his books it is all "one subject at a time", the bigger picture of the idea that things may be connected or linked is missing. I find myself wishing I had titled the blog "little boxes". It is also fascinating to see him pick of "Linked In" as an example to prove a more general point. No one who knows anything about the field would take that sort of risk.

I don't think it is daft or stupid. I do think it is "beyond his ken" which is a pity, intelligent commentary from Tom is always useful.

Well, I'm not sure that Davenport does "paint himself into a corner". It seems to me that his main point is summed up by the title: LinkedIn is not a social network.

By coincidence, a couple of days ago I received an email invite from an old colleague to join LinkedIn. I looked at the stated purpose of LinkedIn, and declined. I didn't seem to fit any of LinkedIn's assumptions: retired and living a quiet and happy life well out of the rat-race doesn't seem to fit their worldview.

Tom is arguing that the social and the business arenas should be separated. In this article he uses LinkedIn as an example, before he used Facebook. Now I can agree with some of his comments on LinkedIn even through I find it useful. Even if what he says about LinkedIn is correct, it does not prove his point about the separation. If I look at my use of LinkedIn and others, then the social and business sides are always mixed. LinkedIn may be a low utility tool, but where it has utility there is no separation