enterprise2.0

December 09, 2007

Enterprise Social Software doesn't get you laid, it gets you promoted

It seems some of my fellow enterprise software bloggers are missing the point in Robert Scoble's post.  The consumerization of the enterprise is one of the bigger trends reshaping enterprise software.  Ask any user of enterprise software if they love it and the answer is no.  This will increasingly matter attracting and retaining employees.  Especially as NetGens enter the workforce, the biggest demographic shift since the Baby Boomers, and the fact that they choice in tools to get most of their work done.

Enterprise software can do better.  In fact it has to, because of broader competition.  At least with basic usability.  And with due bravery to buyers about the actual return with users are served.  Step out of the feature matrix.  Also recognize that control instincts lead to unusable crap that is a barrier to collaboration.  And every enterprise software app is a collaboration app, otherwise its infrastructure.

What works against doing better is how institutional procurement will always demand direct relationship and mass customization.  Whereas consumers need less customization (nare I say fads) and are served at a high volume, where intimacy is achieved through brands.

We're experimenting at the margin with new models such as SaaS and Open Source, which needs to appeal to people instead of institutional procurement.  It may be the first way into an institutional sale, and it does have different demands.  But the inherent lack of focus for a vendor, between consumers who happen to work in enterprises and the institutions that bind them, is great. 

We're also doing a lot of experimentation around social software, which in consumer markets helps get them laid.  Enterprise social software can't do that without risk of lawsuits.  But it can help people get promoted.

October 26, 2007

Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Social Software

Gartner Research released the first Magic Quadrant report on the Enterprise Social Software market this week.

This is a pretty big milestone in the development of the Enterprise 2.0 category at-large.  Just a few years ago, the only analysts covering the space were blogalysts.  Now, perhaps the most rigorous and influential vendor analyst reports in enterprise software says it really is enterprise software. The analysis rightly says we all have work to do.

It also says that Socialtext is the most visionary provider and behind only Microsoft, BEA and IBM in execution.  This tells me that if we want to be the leader we need to demonstrate better execution (mind you, I'm not taking out IBM next year, but it is good feedback).  SuiteTwo, of which we are a core component, also scored well in vision but has a way to go in execution.

August 30, 2007

Microsoft Acquires Parlano, Enterprise 2.0 Group Chat pre-integrated with Socialtext

Microsoft acquired enterprise group chat provider Parlano today for undisclosed terms.  Parlano's MindAlign product has made significant headway in financial services and I first encountered them deployed at Dresdner KlienwortSocialtext offers pre-integration with MindAlign, which will be incorporated into Microsoft Office Communications Server and Microsoft Office Communicator, Microsoft’s server and client software for presence, instant messaging, conferencing and VoIP.  We see this news as a further complement to our SocialPoint offering which integrates Socialtext best-of-breed wiki with Sharepoint.

Congratulations to CEO Nick Fera and the good folks at Parlano.  Don Dodge shares how his team at Microsoft brought them in.  There are interesting competitive implications for this acquisition for Cisco, among others.  Early adopters of such technology will probably equate it with industrial strength IRC, and get how vital this kind of tool can be collaboration.

August 15, 2007

Mobile Enterprise 2.0

Stephen Johnston, my old friend and customer at Nokia, has an extensive post on mobility and Enterprise 2.0.  He provides an overview of the category, survey of existing developments, case for Nokia to participate and builds an argument for open and collaborative development.  Of course, I'll just extract the section on wikis and collective intelligence:

Amazon is often held up as the first example of a service provider that lets users benefit from collective intelligence through their collaborative filtering engine. So, why would this not also work in areas other than books? For example, "intelligent" CRM software could scan the salesperson's customer responses, and suggests appropriate product offerings based on large numbers of other interactions, potentially also outside the company. (Actually, maybe it does already, it’s been a while since I worked in the industry). Most sales people are inherently mobile, and providing lightweight usable tools that expose this collective intelligence at the right time and in the right context, could be a very valuable offering to mobile users.

Wikis are great at capturing user-created intelligence and are rapidly becoming mainstream in the enterprise space, but if you’ve ever tried using one of today’s wikis from your mobile, you’ll appreciate the inherent problems here. Socialtext have been making moves in this regard, but here is a standard chicken-and-egg problem – limited demand resulting in limited development time, begetting limited offerings. UI and synchronization are the key issues to solve. As noted above, services requring smart and big browsers face an uphill struggle on the mobile. Today’s wikis often suggest side-by-side version control review, and require a big screen to see the differences. Synchronization is a key conceptual challenge with mobile, since they generally are not always on. Wikis rely on having one version of the truth – two people making changes to the same item when offline then syncing later makes would vex Schrödinger himself.

Today project managers in Nokia that I work with will generally just create an empty wiki space as they start a new project. This example is being played out across the corporate landscape, and could well disrupt collaboration applications that are built on the assumption that the designers – cut off from the action – know what’s right for each project. Here Nokia’s interests are well aligned with the wiki companies and web services companies in general – do away with the need for a PC and keep the smarts in the cloud. Once bottom up “architectures of participation” are in place, powerful learnings can then be harnessed - enterprise-focused social networking tools (Ryze, Tribe, LinkedIn) are able to unearth links, activities and dependencies around the organization which traditional hierarchies and organizational structures miss.

There are plenty of ways that mobiles could be used as both in-the-field data gatherers, providing relelvant context, or being the mobile manager’s tool of choice for viewing and interacting with the wisdom of the crowds who have gone before.

If you haven't tried Miki the mobile wiki, log on with your Socialtext hosted credentials at http://mi.ki with your mobile web browser.

July 18, 2007

Cases2.com launched

During his keynote at the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston, HBS Professor Andrew McAfee put out a call to create a community for sharing case studies on Enterprise 2.0.  After some sharing and prototyping in private, www.cases2.com has launched on a Socialtext wiki.  There are five cases so far:

  1. Angel.com (MicroStrategy) case study

  2. at&t Collaborative Integration

  3. Boston College case study

  4. Fidelity Investments Collaborative Integration

  5. MWW Group case study

From Suw Charman's live blogging of his keynote:

Need case studies - have a few examples that we fall back on. Our store-houses of success stories needs to expand fairly dramatically if we are going to get traction with decision-makers within companies. What will help them make that decision is verifiable case studies. Need to make sure we don't keep using the same examples over and over. Mustn't get into the trap of coming up with impressive ROI numbers for these techs, Lots of these ROI numbers quoted are 200% - 300%, which makes people ask, if these are true then we should be throwing money into buying software. Those numbers have to be suspect. Don't want us to fall into the trap of coming up with glowing numbers.

Can talk about what happened, at the anecdote or case study level. These are very persuasive. Not all companies have a rigid ROI view of investments, but what they want is ways to triangulate the quality of investment.

Need to address this problem, need a repository of information. If and when we do this we need to throw the gates open as widely as possible - should be emergent, widely accessible, and egalitarian. Need to disclose where this information comes from - it's not automatically suspect when a case study comes from a vendor. Too often, we don't to basic levels of disclosure, so just need some disclosure rules about who's putting information up. Wikipedia has an elaborate set of rules, guidelines and policies which have emerged over time. Not sure what they set of ground rules is needed, but we'll come up with them over time. He volunteers to participate in this effort, what we need is a couple of technologists or vendors to provide environment; perhaps a wiki. Then everyone else throws information up, and structure will emerge over time, as will groundrules, but it would be an invaluable resource for all of us if there's a repository were we can point decision makers to so they can find valuable information.

McAfee put out the call for contribution today:

If you know of an E2.0 case study, please enter any and all details. We don't care if you were directly involved in the project or not, got paid for it or not, etc. We simply ask that you be as honest and forthcoming as possible, cite sources where available, and disclose your relationship(s) to the companies involved.

This last point is critical. It's fine for a vendor or consultant to add information about one of their cases, and it's fine if that information is not verifiable from objective and/or published sources. It's essential, though, that contributors correctly and completely identify themselves and their relationships so that readers have the information necessary to make their own judgments about possible biases.

June 20, 2007

Enterprise 2.0 Keynote

Slides from my ten minute talk today...

Notes will probably be shared on the Enterprise 2.0 Wiki.

KnowNow on the launch pad

Sam Weber the VP of Technical Services is a 1.0 veteran on the Enterprise 2.0 launch pad.  No longer selling and supporting software that users hate to use.  50% of email is jumk, <20% find portals useful, 16 clicks to find information and 50% of searchers are successful.  Sharepoint is a significant problem because of the diffusion of sub-portals.  Big architecture slide time: they monitor data from multiple sources, automate relevancy, transform and deliver and manage information. We do more than RSS for integration.

Launches KnowNow Live.  Has a Netvibes like homepage where you can drag content objects, with a sidebar on the left of channels to select from.  Its an aggregator with a portal like UI you can personalize.

Stowe: I want more demo and less pitch. I see you having a hard slog battling the huge CMS guys who are going to provide this.  Then you have consumer options like Pageflakes chipping at you.  Like 9k people in your space.

David: I met these guys a year and a half ago, nice to see the launch.  Those who do the aggregation make the money.  You have a lot of good customers, but the question is it 9x better than email?

Ross: Good component in an overall aggregation play. 
 

LiquidTalk at Enterprise2.0

Dave Peak, on the Enterprise 2.0 launchpad, with Liquidtalk.

Right now, how many of you are checking your blackberry.  The reality is we are out of time, are out of the offfice, have few cracks in the day to get it done and few chances to connect in real time.  Difficult to collaborate when out of the office, hard to get knowledge on the go, productivity plummets when on the go.  Attracting the best talent means helping the next generation get their information immeadiacy, place value on peer input.  Roles are getting tougher while expectations are higher, with rising rep turnover rates, high dependency on top performers.  A disengaged and disconnected workforce means lost productivity and lost revenue.

Our answer is mobile workforce engagement.  Create, find, organize and push audio/video business content to mobile devices.  Leverages the most powerful means for collaboration -- the human voice.

Liquidtalk portal lets a rep gain access to video and podcast files, and synch them to their mobile device.  The inbox is about things pushed to his list by his boss to consume as well. Liquidcast lets you phone in a podcast to the Liquidlibrary.

Dave Coleman's take:  This is more interesting, would like for new vendors to explain what they do in one slide rather than five or six.  I thought this was more of DVD for conversations that you can timeshift.  You are more like Tivo than iTunes.  I find podcasts useful, but as information transfer than knowledge.

Stowe Boyd's take:  I feel to compelled to talk about the slideshow because the buildup was different.  I have the sense that this is a feature.  Creating content seems like work, but if it was part of something larger, such as being part of Salesforce.com and its activity.

Ross' take: there are a lot of podcasting companies and tools in the space.  This seems well focused for enterprise use.  Every product starts as a feature.

How to Build an Enterprise 2.0 Platform Employees Will Use

Live impressionistic transcription of How to Build an Enterprise 2.0 Platform Employees Will Use
Moderator - Rob Preston, Editor in Chief, Information Week
Speaker - Mike Fratesi, Manager, Solutions Marketing, Unified Communications, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Speaker - Oliver Young, Analyst, Forrester Research, Inc

Speaker - Toby Redshaw, Corporate Vice President, I.D.E.A.S., Motorola

Toby: We had a KM system where you can put information in if you had a password and could remember where stuff was and the password.  Turned on wikis 4400 blogs and 4200 wikis.  Didn't even tell anybody, just turned it on.  Plus forums and FAQs.  There is a community that has the collective knowledge of the last twenty years of the company.  This accelerates the clockspeed of the company.  We are implementing Baynote and Scuttle for folksonomy.  I thought it would be utter crap, Arlo Guthrie doing IT, but it actually works, seeing heat maps and accelerating discovery and learning.  Widgets, social networking with Visible Path.  The key is that it just has to be so easy to use for adoption.  Don't train, advertise it, did have to explain scuttle a little bit.  The higher up you go in the heirarchy the less it is used, a good thing, the real work is elsewhere.

Oliver: What I see is a bit of a dichotomy.  The marketing and communication departments, the lines of business are excited about these tools.  But IT has a lot of fear.  They look at these tools and think they are decentralized, emergent, not easy to control and my employees are doing this anyway.  The command and control thought, keeping CIOs up at night.  They learned a lot of lessons from IM, where employees used it anyway.  A lot of companies say we can't lock it out, lets figure out how to do this.  For those who are bringing it in, it is in an experimental phase.  Far less common that you find someone that says lets change things.  At Motorola you have cool tech that rolls out under the covers, something common, but it limits the potential impact.

Mike: Coming from the unified communication space, WebEx acquisition, getting into collaboration and deploying it ourselves.  We want to give people more immediate access to their experts.  A huge amount of growth in real time collaboration, moving people beyond the phone.  A ton of inefficiency needs to be driven out.  Integrating people, processes and data and making the communications a core part of the effort.  Moving from an ad hoc deployment model to a multi million dollar initiative to redo our Intranet.  Making it easier to build communities of interest, from mailing lists that overwhelm.  Chambers is talking all about collaboration, for our organization and our customers.

Toby: You have to have a small team to do this.  One manager and four people.  The actual information is driven by 250 knowledge champions, selected by the community.  A badge of honor to be a champion, shepard the wiki.  I get calls that say, did you know we have 4000 blogs, are they doing anything bad?  Yeah, probably.  Can we control it?  Yes, give me 400 people to monitor it, but it will kill it.  They schedule a meeting and I don't show up and life goes on.  I don't beat competition through better buildings, companies are human beings solving problems, driving opportunistic events by working with dumb stuff like buildings and cash.  Its like Chess.  You move once, I get to move twice.  Who do you think will win?  That's what a community platform gets you.

Oliver: To some extent the security question is paranoia, but all security is paranoia.  Stealing a laptop is a bigger risk than email or blogging.  External blogging means that with a big organization, someone is, and in regulated industries it is a serious issue.  Adoption is happening in your enterprise whether you like it or not.  In a survey, leaders estimated 20% were using these tools.  Those making no investment had about 3-8%.  Need to give guidelines about what is appropriate.  SaaS lets a business unit leader get my entire group up and running for $20 on Socialtext, for example.  Without involving IT.  I have a lot of faith in Socialtext that they are a secure service and not losing data.  But you have to have a story if it runs up the chain through IT to explain it.  The final way is frankly Sharepoint.  Have to put policies in place.

Mike: Cisco is really trying to change the way we work.  We are moving to collaborative communities at all levels towards the goal of growth.  We have people with deep expertise that are difficult to locate.  The mandate Chambers gave to IT, which has done a great job, yet there are ways to better respond to users needs, so they are investigating Enterprise 2.0 and how to integrate it with communications.  From the bottom up perspective there are wikis across the organization, they aren't integrated and you have to support it yourself.  Wiki is a much better way for managing projects, such as a product launch that is a massive cross functional effort.

Toby: I was a young guy once.   A quick comment, not to pick on Motorola because they are a competitor.  You have to build it as a platform, with freedom to use, because if it gets big it will be out of control.   Needs to be searchable, enable migration.  But to answer the question, you can't tell people not to multitask.  The old school pre web people were actually some of the biggest adopters.  Super simple to use and really useful.  These are people with greater knowledge and more to gain by using these tools.  In some places, I don't know, Kentucky, it may not be that way.  But we found the adoption curves were pretty much even across the age groups.  40+ a little more usage, but the closer you get to real work, the more it is used.

Oliver: some workspaces are earlier adopters and cultures for new technologies.  At Northwester Mutual, their employees are mostly older, 33% retiring in 5 years, and they are struggling with this.  In youth, 77% are creating content, but at 41-50 only 21% do.  Even people who are reading, there is a group of people who don't even participate in this way.  You are dead on with the knowledge champion role, the evangelists who can show people the way.  One or two people you have the propensity to adopt start using them, and to better effect, and the guy next to them sees and copies so he is not at a disadvantage.  The stealth launch needs support for the spread, for the evangelists, but having someone see how it is valuable to them in their business context is the real goal.  Asked a law firm and they said the older lawyers weren't jumping on these tools, as they were with Blackberries initially, now he can't pry them out of their cold dead hands.  Need time and familiarity, and the right to fork.

Toby: hard to measure the results.  Old school companies built campuses for a reason, discovering people by bumping into them which indirectly helps projects.  We see this happening 10k times a day.  Inside IT we are seeing the cycle time on delivering product and getting stuff done really ramp up.  A little medium is the message going on.  I see less email, which is the worst thing going through an enterprise.

Oliver: really hard to measure.  Same with email or a portal, a soft ROI.  Hard to put saving five minutes a day into dollar terms.  And it takes a leap of faith.  At the same time it depends on the installation.  One company that rolled out wikis, took a legacy database that tracked IT standards, said we can put it all in a wiki, have every IT employee update it on their own when things change.  Moved two people off of the project and on to something else. 

Toby: you can tell lots of stories like this.  Before and after with a sales wiki: borrowing materials, building a pitch, find the 12 people who worked on something like it before.  People in logistics see four red things in a dashboard, click on them to the wiki.  I say cycle times are down 12%, they say that's great how did you measure this?  I made it up, but it was based on the best information available.

Oliver: Employee surveys are a good approach.  Surface anecdotes.

Mike: (Ross: honestly, I think Cisco will have more to talk about when it comes to results, without defaulting back to unified communications, by next year)

Toby: The question how do you help people understand how to search and tag appropriately.  We have 2600 users on Scuttle, but a bunch of people who look across tags.  All of it is a simple one page description of how you do it, if you need more it is not the right solution.  I stole a rule from the CIA: if you can't feed the team in two pizzas, get someone off the team.

March 23, 2007

More Enteprise 2.0 Statistics

Following the Forrester and McKinsey studies yesterday, I stumbled upon this from a forthcoming EIU report:

One of the most striking bits of data from the EIU’s work (surveying over 400 executives, over 40% C-level) is that over 80% of respondents reported that they view the 2.0 technologies as “an opportunity to increase my company’s revenues and/or margins.” Fewer than one person in 20 view the 2.0 technologies as a threat, and fewer than one in 5 expect it to have no significant impact on their businesses.

The EIU survey also indicates that these executives have formed quite strong opinions about where 2.0 will impact most strongly. Over 75% of them report that the greatest impact from 2.0 will come in “the way my company interacts with customers.” Approximately 40% report that they see strong impacts coming in the way their company is viewed by customers and in the way employees interact with each other and the enterprise. And 40% also report that they see 2.0 impacting their business models.

Value propositions are either increasing revenue, decreasing soft costs, decreasing hard costs or managing risk.  I'm encouraged to find a survey where results are positive about the former.

March 22, 2007

Being the Choice Leader

Nick Carr reports on two studies of Enterprise 2.0 adoption by large enterprises:

Some hard data is coming out this week on the adoption of Web 2.0 tools by companies. Yesterday, Forrester released some results from a December 2006 survey of 119 CIOs at mid-size and larger companies. It indicated that Web 2.0 is being broadly and rapidly brought into enterprises. Fully 89% of the CIOs said they had adopted at least one of six prominent Web 2.0 tools - blogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS, social networking, and content tagging - and a remarkable 35% said they were already using all six of the tools. Although Forrester didn't break out adoption rates by tool, it did say that CIOs saw relatively high business value in RSS, wikis, and tagging and relatively low value in social networking and blogging.

McKinsey did a broader survey of 8,300 executives with similar demand and adoption patterns:

It found that social networking was actually the most popular tool, with 19% of companies having invested in it, followed by podcasts (17%), blogs (16%), RSS (14%), wikis (13%), and mashups (4%). When you add in companies planning to invest in the tools, the percentages are as follows: social networking (37%), RSS (35%), podcasts (35%), wikis (33%), blogs (32%), and mashups (21%).

But the highlight of the Forrester study for Nick and Richard MacManus is CIO attitudes towards incumbent vendors vs. startups.

74% of CIOs said they'd be more interested in investing in Web 2.0 if all the tools were offered as a suite, and 71% said they'd prefer the tools to be "offered by a major incumbent vendor like Microsoft or IBM [rather than] smaller specialist firms like Socialtext, NewsGator, MindTouch, and others."

Nick concludes: "You can bypass the CIO on a small scale, but it's difficult to bypass the CIO when it comes time for a company to standardize on a particular product and vendor."  Yup. It has always been the case for enterprise software.

CIOs of large enterprises will largely give preference to the incumbent vendors they have relationships with to realize economies and standardize architecture.  Especially when almost all of their budgets are sunk with maintainence fees of said incumbents.  Part of expressing preference for suites is that suites are now available, beginning with SuiteTwo (Socialtext, Six Apart & Newsgator best of breed core offerings).  I find the results of the survey very encouraging -- that SuiteTwo is a comparable preference to Microsoft or IBM.

Some CIOs will go what what (or whom) they know and stick to existing vendor relationships.  That's why we created SocialPoint for the best-of-breed wiki to work with Sharepoint.  As Lawrence Liu from Microsoft said: "More and more SharePoint customers who want advanced wiki functionality are looking to the specialized wiki ISVs like SocialText to provide it with an integrated user experience in SharePoint by way of 3rd party webparts."

As I've said before, when competing in a market of abundant choices, you have to be the choice leader.  Choice is good.  In some cases, you create choice through channels and partnerships.  But you also have to do so through your core offerings.  Today we have more deployment options than any established or upstart vendor.

Part of why we have choice is not all of our customers are CIOs of large enterprises.  Lee Bryant of explores choice and the convergence of SaaS and Enterprise 2.0 in Bottom-up and inside out - the future of enterprise IT?

Euan's subtle insight on how to do Enterprise 2.0 is that there are powerful grassroots energies to not only tap into, but if you impede them you risk your deployment more than anything.  While there is a certain inevitability of Enterprise 2.0 proliferation thanks not only to SaaS, but namely open source, his message is less about the tools than the demand for them and practices that make it work.

Dion Hinchcliffe explores this and notes "Those that represent to be doing Enterprise 2.0 solely through tool rollout and no infrastructure remediation will almost certainly be among those reporting less encouraging results."

This is all in the context of the alternative to how this post began.  Besides large enterprise CIO preferences, there is the bottom up.  And smaller companies.

Lee discusses the challenges of a completely bottom-up approach:

On the technical level, the integration challenges are non-trivial:

  • identity / Single Sign On (SSO);

  • internal application integration;

  • legislative obligations for data retention, privacy and audit; and,

  • availability.

But the integration of people, practise and (dare I say) process is even harder, with challenges such as:

  • devolving responsibility and promoting a DIY culture;

  • encouraging people to grow their own internal and external networks;

  • stimulating conversation and debate by overcoming fear of exposure; and,

  • for many people, simply overcoming the idea that any form of online communication beyond email is "not part of their job."

Those challenges become opportunities when you have buy in from the top down and IT supports.  And when you have actual leadership, as Suw Charman noted: you have the best adoption strategy.  Lee specifically explores SaaS and rightly notes that it isn't a fit for many enterprises that have customization needs.  He sees two trends in SaaS that have potential to close this gap:

The first is in the area of specialised appliances or systems that live inside the firewall, where they can happily integrate with internal apps ad data, but which can also be updated and fed by managed connections that extend outside the firewall. The Socialtext managed appliance seems to be a good example of this approach, which is a workable compromise between SaaS and purely internal systems.

The second area is enterprise software that takes advantage of managed connections with web services to add value to internal systems. Movable Type was a pioneer of this approach with its blog ping service to feed a public list of recently updated MT blogs. Their impressive roadmap for the enterprise version of this market-leading blog platform suggests they will take this a lot further in MT v4.

You really should go read his post, at least for the Star Wars metaphor.  He concludes that SaaS still has a way to go:

...But the emphasis will shift from software, which is just a mechanism, to services, which is the actual product. Some of these will be new and imaginative forms of what we might recognise as applications, but many will be pure data or data transformation or sharing services. But whilst we will see adoption among SMEs for cost reasons, enterprises will not embrace SaaS for their mission critical systems or data until such a time as we find robust solutions for the key integration and data management challenges.

I see promise on resolving some of these challenges for the enterprise from innovations borne on the web.  OpenID is a good start for identity and authentication, and will find its way into the bowels of enterprise directory authorization.  RESTian APIs are shaking up pre-conceived notions of SOA.  Open Source provides more options for not only these challenges, but is the dark horse for Enterprise 2.0 the adoption race.

March 20, 2007

SaaS Appliance

Last week we quietly launched the Socialtext Managed Service Appliance.  Initially we thought this infrastructure innovation would simply give us some operational efficiencies.  But as we ran it by customers, passing their security audits and discussing how it changes IT Operations -- we discovered it was something greater, the delivery of Software-as-a-Service behind the firewall.

When we first created the Appliance deployment option, we worked hard to streamline administration, from setup in 10 minutes to simplifying upgrades.  Fedex a CD, have someone stick it in and type go for an upgrade.  Admittedly, we had one notable failure.  One customer put the CD on top of the server, got some coffee or something, came back and couldn't get it to go.  Turns out CDs melt.  So we started shipping USBs (download has always been an option too).

Practically, the Appliance model is halfway between the latency of SaaS (near zero) and Onsite deployment (near infinity).  Even if you make tasks like a routine upgrade fast and simple, it doesn't mean they will actually happen.  In some IT departments, particularly those who have outsourced IT with firm SLAs, an upgrade is considered a degradation of service level!

This means that even if the upgrade includes an important patch or desired feature, the vendor gets a scheduled window of opportunity, measured in months or quarters, which can be a lifetime.  On our SaaS version we do upgrades measured in hours or days.  Given the constraint to get our best stuff behind the firewalls of customers we developed the operational discipline and QA processes to really give them our best stuff.  We will serve no wine before its time.

As is common practice for startups, eating our own dogfood (or drinking our own champaign) means our company runs on staging versions.  Not the highly experimental branches you might find in our open source repository, but we bang on it before you do and sometimes it bangs on us.

With a SaaS Appliance, our general release process remains relatively the same, but accelerated.  Turns out IT departments not only love how they don't have to touch it, it simply works, but they can realize a lower TCO -- and shift the SLA burden to the vendor.

Among Phil Wainewright's roundup of 2007 SaaS Predictons was this from Saugatuck Technology on SaaS 2.0:

"SOA's impact on SaaS has lead to development of the Extended-Enterprise Service Bus (X-ESB) as a managed-service appliance … We expect to see an increasing number of SaaS Appliances emerge over the next few years as SaaS becomes fully integrated into the enterprise."

One forward looking enterprise we worked with has the strategic version to move all applications off of their network and rely on SaaS across the public internet.  Not everyone has this vision.  And regulations dictate that some never will.  But nobody is in a better position to take the pulse and manage the health of software than the vendor.  A Managed Service Appliance is a model that meets security and regulatory needs, enables the service of SaaS while offering SOA integration within the enterprises' security framework.  Not all enterprise software will be delivered this way, but it is an option on the rise for good reason.

SEE ALSO: Why Appliances Are Good

March 09, 2007

Doing Enterprise 2.0

It is as though he nailed it to the church door, so I'm quoting Euan in his entirety:

The 100% guaranteed easiest way to do Enterprise 2.0?

DO NOTHING

And then your bright, thoughtful and energetic staff will do it for you. Trouble is they will do it outside your firewall on bulletin boards, instant message exchanges personal blogs and probably on islands in Second Life and you will have lost the ability to understand it, influence it, and integrate it into how you do business.

The second easiest way is to find ways of allowing this to happen inside the firewall which can be as simple as sticking in some low cost or free tools and then making sure your existing organisation can:

GET OUT OF THE WAY

The third easiest way is to do the second easiest way and then engage those who would have done the easiest way and get them to help you:

KEEP THE ENERGY LEVELS UP

And the hardest way .......

 

.... you don't need me to tell you that!

January 31, 2007

HBS Case on Wikipedia

Andrew McAfee and Karim Lakhani created the first Harvard Business School case on Wikipedia which is available for free online and published under the GFDL.  The case explains Wikipedia mechanics and the story of the Enterprise 2.0 article for deletion debate.  I guess we now have peer reviewed evidence that not only does Enterprise 2.0 exist, but Wikipedia exists.

Andrew shares how he will discuss the case with his students:

  • Why Nupedia (Wikipedia's more formal predecessor) failed to gather momentum, and why Wikipedia has gathered so much.
  • Whether Wikipedia's highly egalitarian and freeform editing processes and policies yield good results and, if so, how this happens.
  • How decision rights are allocated in Wikipedia.
  • The merits of the Inclusionist and Deletionist perspectives.
  • Whether Wikipedia really has become a "post-revolutionary Bolshevik Soviet, with an inscrutable central power structure wielding control over a legion of workers."
  • Whether the Wikipedia community practices the 'right' level of deference to the opinions and judgments of subject matter 'experts.'
  • If Wikipedia's policies are being correctly followed, what the fate of the "Enterprise 2.0" article should be.

November 07, 2006

SuiteTwo Launched: Enterprise 2.0 in a Box

A small dream of mine came true today.  We've been preaching an ecosystem of tools for some time now.  We've helped customers stitch them together in interesting ways.  In fact, Andrew McAfee's original article on Enterprise 2.0 was borne from observing what was happening in one of our customers and projecting into the future.  Well, future happens fast.

Looking back, look what I blogged just before the first Web 2.0 conference:

I'm providing a workshop on Enterprise Social Software with Socialtext Customer Mike Pusateri from Disney.  You might recall his great presentation at the at the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Confererence in February. Mike and his team are leading the way with how they are using lightweight web-native tools as a platform for productivity. Not just how they use Socialtext for project communication, but how they stitch it together Moveable Type and Newsgator for an ecosystem of tools with RSS.

That was then, this is now. This morning I provided a workship on Enterprise 2.0.

Today we announced SuiteTwo, The Enterprise 2.0 Suite powered by Intel.  Intel is distributing the Best of Breed wiki (Socialtext), blog (Six Apart), Feed Aggregation (Newsgator) and Feed Publishing (SimpleFeed), supported by Spikesource, through its channels including Dell, NEC, Ingram, Novell and Red Hat.

This fulfills Andrew McAfee's vision of Enterprise 2.0.  In a box.  Made simple for Small-to-Mid-sized Enterprises.  Extensible because we've all supported open APIs.  Enterprise 2.0 is freeform social software adapted for organizationsSuiteTwo is the first offering to realize the SLATES paradigm:

SLATES = Search | Links | Authorship | Tags | Extensions | Signals

In the latest issue of the Harvard Business Review, McAfee went further to distinguish this Network IT (NIT) from Functional IT and Enterprise IT:

As the DrKW example illustrates, NIT’s principal capabilities include the following:

Facilitating collaboration. Network technologies allow employees to work together but don’t define who should work with whom or what projects employees should work on. At DrKW, ad hoc teams have formed because employees read one another’s blogs. These teams have used the wiki to accomplish tasks, and they have disbanded without orders from senior executives.

Allowing expressions of judgment. NITs are egalitarian technologies that let people express opinions. DrKW employees use blogs to voice their views about everything from open-source software to interest rate movements.

Fostering emergence. “Emergence” is the appearance of high-level patterns or information because of low-level interactions. These patterns are useful because they allow managers to compare how work is done with how it’s supposed to be done. Emergence is also valuable for users. For instance, employees can easily search and navigate DrKW’s blogs and wiki for trends and data even though nobody is in charge of making them easy to use.

...Employees exploit older NITs such as e-mail and instant messaging on their own, but business leaders have a role to play in exploiting newer technologies like blogs and wikis. They can help sustain and increase the use of complements to make the technology continually more effective, primarily by guiding users. Darren Leonard, a managing director in the global equity derivatives business at Dresdner Kleinwort, recalls how he got his colleagues to use the company’s wiki: “First, if a wiki has no structure, it’s perceived not as an opportunity but as anarchy, and our people have no time for anarchy. I went back to my initial pages and rewrote them to be a lot more directive. For example, I made a page with the agenda for an upcoming meeting and asked people to add to it. Second, wikis have to be clearly better than other ways of collaborating. There have to be uses [for them] that demonstrate their power. One of these uses came prior to a special senior management meeting where we could bring questions from our groups and get them answered. I put up a page…asking my [team members] what questions they wanted me to ask on their behalf. People used the page to post questions, edit them, and discuss which ones were the most important and why. That really accelerated wiki use. Finally, old habits are hard to break. The tendency is for people to keep using e-mail because that’s what they know....I have to [tell them], ‘I’m not reading e-mails on this topic. Use the wiki’ or ‘Everyone’s assignments are on this page—use the same page to report on progress.’”

Lead users and enterprises already work this way today.  Only they do so without usable efficiency.  Integrated single sign-on, search and tag cloud are just the beginning.  One click subscription to a page, blog post, search query, report, weblog and wiki make feeds usable (unlike today's user experience, when they click on an orange icon and think their browser is broken).  Rapidly form groups, draft together on a wiki page, publish to a blog and track results. 

Beyond making such tasks efficient, the benefits to productivity, discovering emergent intelligence and high-engagement marketing are significant.  Very soon a user will wake up in the morning, log in to SuiteTwo, immediately recognize something emerging.  With the top blog posts telling her what the company is talking about, the top wiki pages showing her what people are working on, top posts from the outside that her company is subscribed to and the feedback from what they are publishing
-- something will emerge.  She recognizes the opportunity, pulls on the social fabric and easily forms a diverse group of experts.  They follow new feeds and generates others while working with a little productive friction.  They develop a plan and draft a new offering in the wiki.  They publish to a public blog and track where it goes. The feedback loops continue, she goes home for the day and the organization is bound to adapt again.

This isn't your Dad's enterprise, but one you will be working with soon.

November 06, 2006

Enterprise Gap

Mark Masterson highlights the need for Enterprise 2.0 to work with Enterprise 1.0:

...This is interesting, and it addresses real concerns -- in a brief conversation recently triggered by my post, a CSC CTO said to me that one of his biggest concerns is the potential for silos of information that are (but shouldn't be) isolated from one another. In other words, he's just as concerned about there being useful information in some blog or wiki, that some Enterprise 1.0 user needs but can't get access to, as the other way around. The BEA software looks to be aimed at solving the Enterprise 1.0 -->> Enterprise 2.0 gap, and not the other way around. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that people are thinking about this.

Fear not, Mark.  We're trying to get it right this time.

No Enterprise 2.0 company in their right mind would want to be an island, no matter the paradise.  Most of us began working on interop even when our own apps were half-baked.  RSS, Atom and other ad hoc standards proliferated.

But while we make an effort to work with existing enterprise architecture (e.g. Socialpoint), we'll stay on the side of the web.  Because the web as a platform compounds innovation that eventually makes itself into legacy architecture.  Just look at the amount of enterprise applications leveraging RSS and Ajax. This morning I came across a funny way to describe this, in an intro to a new book about REST:

There are lots of books about Big Web Services: complex distributed-object systems that reproduce the mechanics of method calls over HTTP. The problem is 1) these systems are way too big for what they do, and 2) they're on the web but they aren't of the web. They don't use any of the web's features, or interact with anything else on the web. They just use HTTP as a transport protocol. They could just as easily run over TCP and get better performance.

These un-weblike systems were able to take the name "Web Services" away from the competition because the competition is... the web. Just writing programs that interact with the web. Sounds pretty sketchy! The web may be all right as a platform for serving movies, or selling books, or trading stocks, or democratizing publishing, or coordinating huge volunteer projects, or searching much of the information currently in existence, but there's no way it's up to the task of managing Accounts Payable! For that you need... Web Services!

As Big Web Services gathered steam, the pro-web forces rallied behind the banner of REST: a name for the design philosophy that made the human-visible web so successful. They preached simplicity, addressability, statelessness and the uniform interface of HTTP. They also got into lots of heated arguments about what REST really meant.

Some organizations created services that claimed to be RESTful, and others critiqued those services and said they weren't RESTful really, and is "RESTful" even a word? Meanwhile the world's programmers started finding options in their IDEs that generated code for Big Web Service clients and servers, so they wouldn't have to do so much programming.

..."Speaking of Ajax, did you know that an Ajax application is basically a REST web service client that runs in your web browser?"

It should be noted we are also plugging the gaps that Enterprise 1.0 missed. As an aside in the Shameless Plug department, Socialtext 2.0 was released as Open Source on Sourceforge this weekend, and as you tinker, here is the REST documentation.

October 11, 2006

Enterprise 2.0 Beyond the Office

As Rod Boothby points out, there are a lot of definitions flying around for similar things when it comes to Web 2.0 and the Enterprise.  This week I spoke on a panel at Enterprise 2006, an invitation-only no-blogging enterprise software event that I highly recommend for the mix and setting of CIOs and potential partners.  You may recall that I follow Andrew McAfee's original definition of Enterprise 2.0 as freeform social software adapted for organizations.  MR Rangaswami (who hosted the Enterprise 2006) broadened the definition to include modern technology, development and delivery:

Enterprise 2.0
While this is a helpful framework for looking at the disruptive changes across the industry, it dilutes what is really new, and possible.  I'm with Rod that the original definition's emphasis on freeform, emergence and implied decentralization.  Not because it changes the enterprise software industry -- but because it has the potential to change enterprises.

This came to a head on the panel, moderated by Ken Berrymanof McKinsey with panelists Brett Caine of Citrix Online, Josh Pickus of SupportSoft, Mark Symonds of Plexus Online and myself.  All three were great companies exemplary of modern business models such as SaaS.

But the bigger problem is while Enterprise 2.0 can serve as an apt descriptor, from a naming standpoint it broadens the divide between vendor and customer.  Vendors like version numbers.  Customers don't because they have been abused for so long:

  1. forced payment for upgrades
  2. forced upgrades that don't provide an improvement for business users
  3. consequently, an upgrade in the enterprise is seen as a degredation in service availability, especially where IT is outsourced and under an SLA

I bring all this up in part because it will come up again at MIT-Stanford VLab event on Enterprise 2.0 next week where I am speaking alongside SugarCRM and Visible Path.

While I look forward definitions of Office 2.0 to come out of the conference of the same name, I don't think it will face the same issue.  To me, Office 2.0 is modern web tools designed for the scale of a small to mid-sized businesses (SMB/SME).  At this scale, the business model and product  -- and the potential for emergence is reduced.

What they have in common is designing tools for users first, buyers second.  In some cases, these users are developers.  But this is a big shift in strategy for a software vendor that is increasingly a competitive necessity.

September 10, 2006

Defining Discussing Enterprise 2.0

Another wave of Enterprise 2.0 definition has been kicked off by MR Rangaswami's otherwise good post on the trend.  He defines it as enterprise software using the latest in technology, development and delivery methodologies.  Andrew McAfee rightly brings it back to the original definition (Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers.) and rightly points to the contributions of Ray Lane, Rod Boothby and Dion Hinchcliffe.

The funny thing is we have been through this before.

Through the end of 2002, the big debate was on defining social software.  In conversations spinning off of this link (Matt rebuilt his blog so most backlinks have been taken out of the index) a great vetting occured that helped everyone understand what it was, but no single definition reached absolute concensus.  Today's Wikipedia definition seems to be off the mark, but Meatball captures the points of view and since then there have been good posts that trace evolution.  But I have to bring it back to the definition I contributed at the time we founded Socialtext:

Social Software adapts to its environment,

instead of requiring its environment to adapt to software.

My point back then was adaptation to both people and other systems required a different architecture and openness.

Today, Enterprise 2.0 needs more case studies beyond what Socialtext is achieving to give us more to talk about.  The conversation will likely continue, along the way we will gain insight, and absolute concensus on a definition is not the post important thing.  Like a standard, truth is in implementation.

September 01, 2006

Enterprise 2.0: Keep

The result of the deliberation over the Enterprise 2.0 article in Wikipedia was a keep.  You can see the archived discussion here. Despite all the fuss, I'm pleased with the process and the outcome.

Also, Optimize Magazine has a new piece on Enterprise 2.0, with the pros and con.

UPDATE: SJ:

As always, it amazes me that so many people -- homemakers, high school students, firemen -- who simply care about the development of a reference work can be as sensitive to nuance and level-headed in academic discussions as academics (who have devoted much of their life to scholarly discourse).  It makes me at once proud and disappointed by our civilization; that all manner of subtleties can be picked up without special training; and that much capability is untapped through ignorance or denial of this.

August 24, 2006

Enterprise 2.0 Re-considered for Deletion in Wikipedia

The Wikipedia Article Enterprise 2.0 has been restored and is undergoing it's second vote for deletion (or keep).  You can share your thoughts on this matter on this page.

This is not really an opportunity for a bunch of bloggers to blather in support.  Given the attention the article will get, it is a great opportunity to create an even better article about an important trend.

For me, this has been a fascinating look at the part of the process that makes Wikipedia work.

August 22, 2006

Enterprise 2.0 Re-vote

After the Wikimania panel on Enterprise 2.0, I rolled up my sleeves and tried to improve the Enterprise 2.0 Wikipedia article.  All that activity caught the eye of an Admin doing his job, who excersized speedy deletion.  Little did I know the article had already been deleted, primarily because it failed to meet the neologism criteria

At first, I was a bit shocked, as my work disappeared.  It also took a bit of effort to understand the rules at play and try to picture the process over time and scale.  While away this weekend, a minor blogstorm happened around the deletion.  Dan Farber and Jeff Nolan have some great wrap-up posts and David Tebbutt captured some emails that flew around.  But as I like to say -- blogs are a sprint, wikis are a marathon.

Articles that already failed an Article for Deletion test is a candidate for speedy deletion which any Admin can do for good reason.  The appropriate response is to first for clarification by the Admin who did the speedy deletion.  You can also request a History Undelete, which does not require a vote, to build a case.  But ultimately, in order to have the article restored, it requires a re-vote.

I had the history undeleted for the Enterprise 2.0 Article here.  I invite contributions to help make it more robust, and draw in more reputable and diverse sources that may help it meet the neologism criteria.  I think it is important to give it time before following the process for a revote, but express your opinions on the Discusssion page.

At one point every term was a neologism, language evolves, faster for some people, and the new becomes mainstream.  What's interesting is that Andy McAfee's initial Enterprise 2.0 definition (freeform social software adapted for business) still stands, but is being extended in consistent ways.  Jeff Nolan's insight that enterprise mashups are of processes, while Web 2.0 mashups are more simply data, is significant.  Vinnie challenges us further.  Dion Hinchcliffe offers up a definition of Enterprise 2.0 (richer than what I quote) as liberation:

Enterprise 2.0 in general describes the liberation of often previously inaccessible corporate information to be opened up to general discoverability, consumption, and reuse using a Web-based model.

Remember e-Business?  When the web intersected with enterprise software, a new front-end was accessible across firewalls, consumers learned to interface directly (while being "managed") with transactions that went straight through the back office and across the value chain.  Now think about how the web, and its people, have evolved.  It makes sense that the web will reinvent enterprise software again.  Participatory models, mass collaboration and the economies of speed, scope and span mashups afford will make us re-think process itself.  Part of it is the liberation of information, but most of it is tools that don't get in people's way.  Which especially matters when they are trying to work together.

August 16, 2006

Office 2.0

Ismael Ghalimi is not only becoming the leading Office 2.0 blogger, covering small-scale productivity with zeal, he has turned it into a conference.  While I hope this doesn't mean that in the future everyone will be fameous for their own conference, the event has shaped up into something great.  I'm speaking alongside:

Not suprising these days that every speaker has a blog.

August 10, 2006

Enterprise 2.0 Think Tank Session

Participating today in a think tank session on Enterprise 2.0 hosted by SAP.  When I asked if the event was [ x ] bloggable, they agreed, but also gave the ability for someone to say something is explicitly Not Bloggable.  Susan Duggan from SVWIC came up with a great way to express this, Nota Bene is the new Not Bloggable.

NB! blah, blah, redacted, etc.

The first session was a talk by Jeff Nolan, which is inherently bloggable. This will fundamentally change the way that we build and distribute software.  This is software designed for users.  To me, everything is networked so the idea of something being bloggable is fundamental.

If you were going to start a company today, to get VC funding it would be

  • Web 2.0 in nature
  • Built on the LAMP stack
  • SaaS delivry
  • Rely on "community" for development or adoption
  • Have "r" in the name...Flickr, Zoomr, GTalkr, Taggr, Twttr, Wankr

Within SAP not much has been done officially, but there are lots of smart people looking at this.  No broad adoption of scripting languages, which is an essential component, but Craig Cmehil on SDN has some toolkits and there are great examples of these leveraging Netweaver, for actual company value.  We need to aggressively adopt scripting languages. 

SOA is dead, Web 2.0 is what matters -- SOA benefits are for people who are publishing software, Web 2.0 benefits are for people who actually use your software.

Mashups?  What's a mashup?  In the consumer world, you are really doing some data integration for a service.  But in our world, a mashup is doing process integration.

REST: Representational State Transfer, is HTML + XML without SOAP, with a stateless client/server protocol -- and essential building block for Web 2.0 when combined with scripting.  State doesn't scale to consumer level volumes.  Instead every message can be self contained.

SAP Challenges.  We really don't relying on other people's code.  We think software has to be complex -- if it is important, it has to be hard, and dammit people are going to have to go through training to use it.  Whole generations of users coming into our clients expecting something different. We don't harness network effects.  Turning your app into a platform is making it easy for people to build things you could never anticipate.  We will give you, the lead user, 80% of the solution and let you innovate on top of us.  Today, people need permission to do this with SAP.  Network enable your applications.  Enable data sharing and data defaults. Linkify everything.  Syndicate your content.  Turn your app into a platform.  Open up and build a viral social architecture. 

SAP has some amazing assets to leverage for our benefit, and we would be foolish not to do it.  Some really cool services apps have been built and prototypes (Duet, Muse, Torrent).  The volume of conversation about Web 2.0 is rising dramatically.  What if Zimbra wants to create a new experience on top of SAP.

There is a technical infrastructure, economic model, development ideology, licensing models and delivery model for the Web -- but little has to do with technology.

Ending open question: How does our business model get blown apart when we let people innovate and repackage our services?

Disclosure: SAP Ventures is an investor in my company, Socialtext.

June 09, 2006

Socialtext Partners with Dan Bricklin on wikiCalc

Dan BricklinToday Socialtext announced a partnership with Dan Bricklin (inventor of VisiCalc) to exclusively distribute, redistribute and co-develop wikiCalc -- the social spreadsheet. Dan brings a rich understanding not just of spreadsheets, but also open source and social software. You can thank VisiCalc, the original killer app, for the Personal Computing revolution and bringing PCs into enterprises from the bottom up. It may take some time, but Socialtext, wikiCalc and the community will develop an important contribution to Social Computing. I'd like to share how this came together, what it means and where we are going.

David Weinberger re-introduced me to Dan, whom I met at a couple of conferences. The deal was a calculated decision that took almost six months. We needed to build a shared understanding for how we can work together and work with a community. We share common principles in open source and designing social software. We see an opportunity to change the way people work together, that is different from an office on the web.

Andy McAfee defined Enterprise 2.0 as the use of freeform social software within companies: freeform in that the application does not impose structure prior to use. Since the inception of Socialtext, we have avoided the temptations of structure, not just because one man's structure is another's barrier, but because it immediately divides the world into those who can structure it, and those who cannot.

Wikis begin as a blank page, just like spreadsheets. Some think this is a weakness, but it is actually a strength -- because it asks all the right questions. How should we use this tool? What should we apply this to? What kind of buckets should we put information in? What's my role? To make a wiki work, and all IT for that matter, agreement on how to use the tool makes it work.

When Ward Cunningham invented the wiki ten years ago, one of his core design principles was a collaboration environment for experts and novices alike. This equality of usability matters, especially in the context of an enterprise. Some approaches assume that users will learn a new proprietary scripting language to create or modify structure, but programming will never be a novice activity. Writing and linking can be done by novices, and so too using a spreadsheet. Spreadsheets are the most widely adopted interface for creating and modifying structure, databases and applications.

One way that a wiki, and wikiCalc, enables social use of a tool without imposing structure is the properties of transparency and memory. In a wiki, a copy of every edit is saved with attribution. This supports trust and accountability. Given the nature of spreadsheets, wikiCalc takes this one step further, creating a revision history of every single edit to any cell -- not just when you save and the undos before. This not only holds the promise of tracking down errors, but provides an audit trail.

But spreadsheets, like other killer PC apps, were not designed for a networked world, but for a single users. Today the problem isn't just people playing email volleyball all day digging for who did what to each revision. Work is social, information can be linked and data comes in feeds. Today it isn't the problems of productivity kept personal, but the opportunity to build computing that is social.

Dan just released wikiCalc Beta as an Open Source GPL distribution. Right now you can use and modify a web-based spreadsheet of your own. We hope you will join this community. In the coming days we will release wikiCalc under a more liberal and commercial-friendly distribution. I'll let you determine the differentiating features, but the primary one isn't in the code -- it's that it is Open Source. We see great promise for an enterprise-friendly wikiCalc.

You may know Socialtext's commitment to Open Source has been a foundation of our company values. Today I can share that the Socialtext Open Source Edition, functionally equivalent to our commercial wikis for users, will be released next month at OSCON. Yes, I know it's a little odd for startups to communicate such news in advance, but there is nothing to fear, and it's part of being open with a community. Wikiwyg, wikiCalc and the Socialtext Open Source Edition will all be released under the same OSI complaint Open Source license, based upon the Mozilla Public License. For more information on Open Source licensing, see Dan's great video.

It's a delight to work with Dan. We have a lot of work ahead of us and hope you will join us.

UPDATE: The Associated Press has an in-depth profile of Dan.