No collaboration model is without its flaws, and the Collaborative Web does have some negatives. These don’t stop it from modeling an; rather, it shows the different priorities.
- It is intentionally not designed to explicitly make workflows “easier” or employees “happier”
- Optimizing for easier workflows doesn’t have the necessary context to actually work. It also can result in never accomplishing meaningful work.
- Prescribing a workflow to obtain happiness is at odds with the personal reflection needed for individuals to find their own .
- cannot be algorithmically obtained; it’s a culture that is cultivated, much like .
- Does not have a mechanism to disseminate information. It merely suggests that information needs to be available.
- This works well with companies of a distributed nature that choose to prioritize Availability in the .
- This is in contrast to companies like Amazon which prioritize Availability or Google which prioritize Consistency with very little tolerance for divergence.
- However, it does make it hard to have .
Potential improvements would come not from prescribing any particular procedure or workflow; that would de-prioritize partition tolerance. Instead, giving more explicit effort towards avoiding unnecessary divergence would allow for more readily. This opens the door for propagating information across communication channels and making it easier to suggest strategies to optimize .