Skip to content

{ Category Archives } E2.0 conf

Social processes #e2open

For the last session of the day – and what will be the last session of the Enterprise 2.0 conference for me – I shifted over to the Enterprise2Open unconference for a discussion on social processes with Mark Masterson. As part of his job developing software for insurance companies, he put together a mockup of a social front end for an insurance claims adjuster’s workplace. The home page is dominated by the activity stream, which includes links to tasks, blog posts, documents and other systems that are relevant to this person’s work. It’s not just the usual social network stuff; it also includes information from enterprise systems such as ECM and BPM systems. There would be rules to set priorities on what’s in any given user’s activity stream.

There’s also more purely social features, such as a personal profile with the ability to provide status updates and indicate presence.

When the user clicks on an item in the activity stream representing an enterprise BPM task, the information from the task and its process is pulled into this environment, rather than launching the BPM system’s user interface; this becomes a unified desktop for the user, rather than just a launchpad. Information about a claim could include external data that is mashed up into the interface, such as Google maps. The right panel of the interface changes so that it always shows information to support what is happening in the main pane; when a BPM work item is open, for example, the right panel includes links to people and content that might be related to that specific case. It also includes a tag cloud that can be used to click through to information across the enterprise about that subject; for example, clicking on the “fraudulent injury” tag showed a list of people who are related in some way (that is, they are a resource with some experience) to fraudulent injury claims, and what their role in the process might be.

Masterson presents this as a vision for what he thinks is the best type of interface to present to all the participants in the claims process: no jumping around between multiple applications, no green screens, and the relationships between information from multiple systems combined in ways that make sense relative to the adjuster’s work. I see some of this type of functionality being built into some of the more modern BPM systems, but that’s not what a lot of insurance companies are using: they’re using out-of-date versions of FileNet and other more traditional BPM systems.

As with most unconference sessions, this is a small bit of presentation and a lot of audience discussion. Some in the group made a distinction between collaboration and social, and didn’t see the sort of collaboration within business processes that happens within organizations as social. Masterson (and I) disagree: whenever you deviate from the structured business process in a process such as claims adjudication, it’s an inherently social activity since people are relying on their tacit knowledge about what other people can bring to the process, and using (often) ad hoc methods for bringing them into the flow. I think that they are confusing “social” with “public”, and have been drinking too much of the E2.0 Kool-Aid that’s being passed around at this conference.

The real unique thing here is not putting a pretty front end on enterprise systems (although that’s a nice feature, it’s just a relatively well-understood integration issue); it’s the home page as a unified view of a user’s work environment – I hesitate to call it a unified inbox since it’s not just about delivering tasks or messages to be acted upon – and the information relationships that allow the right panel to be populated with relevant information and links for the specific work context. As opposed to tagging of process instances to use as future templates for exception cases, an idea that I’ve been knocking about for a while, this goes beyond that to collect information that might be related to a process instance from a variety of sources including blogs and wikis. Consider that the claims adjuster is handling a specific exception case, and someone else did a very similar case previously and documented their actions in a procedures wiki: this sort of environment could bring in information about the previous case when the user is processing the current case. The information in the right panel is replacing the user’s memory and the line of sticky notes that they have on the edge of their screen.

There’s some cool ideas in here, and I hope that it develops into a working prototype so that they can get this in front of actual users and refine the ideas. There’s a lot that’s broken in how enterprise processes work, even those that have been analyzed and automated with BPM, and bringing in contextual information to help with a specific work step (especially case management steps such as claims adjudication) is going to improve things at least a little bit.

Tagged
2009 06 24 Sandy Kemsley BPM
social software Comments (0)

Social media and marketing #e2conf

Peter Kim moderated a panel of three people from end-user organizations – Ben Foster of Allstate Life Insurance, Greg Matthews of Humana, and Morgan Johnston of JetBlue – on social media adoption for both external as well as internal use by enterprises.

Allstate recently launched the consumer-facing Good Hands Community, including both a social site and a Twitter presence, for both traditional marketing and sales purposes, but also to maintain a relationship with ex-customers who may have left for financial reasons but still could benefit from Allstate information and potentially become a customer again in the future. It includes tools and calculators, discussion forums and other information.

JetBlue uses social media – specifically Twitter, where they have 730,000 followers as of today – to engage customers, inform customers about what’s happening at JetBlue, and even provide updates on weather and other information that impacts their service delivery.

Humana has a social site run by their consumer innovation center – a sort of center of excellence for enterprise social media – that they are using to try and transform how they interact with their customers and partners; unfortunately, my bandwidth right now won’t allow it to actually load, so I’ll have to take their word for it. This is run separately from their corporate website, and doesn’t include any private customer data.

All of these are intended to engage the consumers, both for informing and for gathering feedback. Social media can be a sort of “canary in a coal mine” about impending problems, and it’s a valuable channel to monitor in order to hear how people are talking about your products or services, potentially heading off PR and customer service disasters before they occur. It’s also a sales lead generation channel, with companies like Dell using Twitter to broadcast deals that aren’t available anywhere else, generating significant revenue from those tweeted deals.

It’s important for multiple departments in an organization to contribute their ideas and needs for consumer-facing social media. It’s not just an IT project, although IT is going to be involved in order to deploy the platform, and there’s a need for rapid prototyping and changes to the site without having to go through an old-fashioned waterfall development approach: this might dictate that the existing corporate IT not be involved, but a new team formed to support this sort of agile approach.

One of the panelists noted that you can see the trends in conferences: social media is now on the agenda at IT conferences, at marketing/PR conferences, at HR conferences and at customer service conferences, indicating that people from multiple areas within organizations that have an interest and a stake in social media.

You have to learn by doing with social media: people have to get in there and start producing content, then see what the consumer feedback is like for that content in order to tune the message and style. That’s a scary thing for most companies, but these three are setting a good example.

Tagged
2009 06 24 Sandy Kemsley social software Comments (2)

The Future of Social Messaging in the Enterprise #e2conf

An eight-person panel discussed how organizations can use social messaging to improve internal and external communication and collaboration. I’m not even going to try to track who says what, since I’ve lost track of who’s who (except for the lone woman on the panel), so just random notes:

  • Unified Communications vendors need to open up their products to allow social messaging to participate. Voice seems to be ignored in Enterprise 2.0 (note that there are no sessions on voice at this conference), but needs to be a part of it. This is especially true when we consider devices such as the iPhone, which is used to participate both through social media and voice. People don’t want think about what tool to use, they want to focus on the problem that they’re trying to solve.
  • Enterprise 2.0 isn’t about giving people “one more thing to do”, but to help make people more effective. This is a big one that I see when trying to get people within my clients to collaborate, often because they don’t give up doing things the old way, so see the new collaboration tools/methods and an additional step rather than a replacement for an old and inefficient way to do things.
  • Social messaging is about forming weak ties, not necessarily about pre-targeted recipients. The ROI may not be obvious up front, but serendipitous discovery of information and people provides unexpected value.
  • We need to stop focusing on the tools and applications, and start focusing on the people and use cases. That is especially obvious in this panel, which still has too much of a tool focus – Marcia Conner from Pistachio Consulting has to keep dragging the conversation back to the people, practices and conversations.
  • The same issues of information security apply to social messaging as to any other form of communications. Social messaging tools don’t equate to information leakage, they just provide another platform for what is likely already happening by voice, email and other methods if you have employees that don’t adhere to your security policies. Governance begins with individuals, and if you can’t trust your employees, you need to monitor their activities. If the corollary is true – that if you monitor your employees’ activities, that means that you don’t trust them – then I see a lot of companies with no trust in the people whom them so carefully recruit and hire. It’s impossible to completely lock down data in any organization, so there needs to be policies (and education about those policies) that lead to self-policing.
  • There is insufficient granularity of presence: with most social platforms, there is a single view of you that is exposed to everyone who you choose to expose it to, and you can’t tune the experience for different audiences. In other words, don’t put anything on Twitter that you wouldn’t want your employer, your competitor or your mother to read. I’ve noticed that although platforms like Facebook are providing tools to allow you to limit what parts of your profile are available to different groups of your contacts, very few people bother to use them.
  • Enterprises matter less; relationships and conversations matter more. Don’t limit yourself to just an enterprise conversation, think about a participatory culture. (I think that I won the Enterprise 2.0 buzzword bingo on that last statement)

These are just the high points; you can check out the Twitter stream for this session or the replay of the video if you want to hear the entire panel.

Tagged
2009 06 24 Sandy Kemsley social software Comments (2)

Applying the Social Dimension to the Lockheed Martin Mission #e2conf

The morning started with Andrew McAfee interviewing Shawn Dahlen and Chris Keohane from Lockheed Martin about how they’ve progressed on their internal social network since we heard about it at last year’s conference.

Back in 2004, they approached the CIO to get project seed money for internal blogging, since there was a need for internal communications that wasn’t being met by company newsletters. For a few thousand dollars, they were able to set up a blogging platform that allowed internal affinity groups to communicate, then realized that they needed to lock down some of the information for security purposes and closed down some of the access, particularly to employees outside the US.

The 9/11 commission report noted that the existence silos of people and information – a “need to know” environment – was part of the problem in government and defense industries, providing Lockheed with the motivation to start opening up some of their information across the company, regardless of location. They worked closely with their internal legal department to make sure that they were

They took their SharePoint environment, which was already in use for document collaboration, and added more social networking aspects by upgrading the blog and wiki capability. This allowed them to evolve an existing, familiar platform into something more social, providing an easier migration for Lockheed’s 150,000 employees. The revolutionary part was to make these communities open to all employees by default, rather than defaulting to a closed site, and currently 65% of their thousands of communities are open.

Because they were making SharePoint do things that it didn’t naturally do, there was a lot of customization involved, but what they’ve ended up with is the ability for anyone to create a community. Apparently, HR resisted this, and lobbied for more centralized control of who could create an internal site rather than allowing self-service, but with the number of internal communities, this would have seriously crippled the spread of the tools to support collaboration within the company.

McAfee asked the question about how easily Lockheed’s aging workforce adopted these social solutions; interestingly, some of the 20-something engineers were some of the ones that had problems with the social community, since although they knew how to use the tools, they didn’t have the business experience to make the tools support the Lockheed business processes. Some of their most prolific bloggers are from the over-40’s workforce, probably because they just have more knowledge to contribute. In other words, enterprise social networking isn’t about age, it’s about appropriate tools, motivation and having something worthwhile to share. You need to have the younger and older parts of the workforce work together in order to achieve the best results.

They went through – and are still experiencing – challenges with acceptance by the executives and across the organization, and have learned that social media needs to be grounded in the challenges of your enterprise. You need to create tools that support what people need to do, not just push something in and force people to use it. The result is that they have leaders within the company who blog regularly, but more importantly, who read, comment and act on what they read in blogs: this shows that management is participating, and that they see it as a channel for

They didn’t set rules around what content should or shouldn’t be included on the sites, but it has taken on the form of what would be normal employee behavior, which is pretty much what we heard yesterday from IBM, Deloitte and EMC. They provided two examples of “misuse” that were removed from the sites: one where someone was talking about their new car, and the other where someone was complaining about the employee review process using questionable tone and/or language.

There’s a breakout session this afternoon with the two Lockheed guys, going into more detail about their social networking platform and its adoption.

Tagged
2009 06 24 Sandy Kemsley social software Comments (1)

Applying the successful strategies of social networks to the enterprise #e2conf

Aaron Levie of Box.net is presenting in the last breakout slot of the day, looking at how to apply the lessons learned in consumer social networks to how these can be applied within the enterprise. He started on the ideas of speed (as in speed/ease of sharing information), community and openness as key features of the consumer web, then went on to discuss why traditional enterprise software isn’t social, based on these three measures. Okay, a bit of a simplistic and technology-focused view, but let’s run with that for now. Also conveniently supports why you would use a service like Box.net…

This was followed by a pretty lightweight list of how this could be applied in the enterprise, but nothing earth-shattering. For a presentation that was supposed to be about content-centric social networks, it was remarkably content-free.

Tagged
2009 06 23 Sandy Kemsley Web20
social software Comments (0)

Transition strategies for Enterprise 2.0 adoption #e2conf

Lee Bryant of Headshift looked at the adoption challenges for Enterprise 2.0 technologies in companies that have grown up around a centralized model of IT, particularly for the second wave adopters required to move Enterprise 2.0 into the mainstream within an organization. He points out that we can’t afford the high-friction, high-cost model of deploying technology and processes, but need to rebalance the role of people within the enterprise.

External tools are subject to evolutionary forces and either adapt or die quickly, whereas we are forced to put up with Paleolithic-era tools inside the enterprise because it’s a captive market. 21st century enterprises, however, aren’t putting up with that: they’re going outside and getting the best possible tools for their uses on demand, rather than waiting for IT to provide a second-rate solution, months or years later.

There is a shift from individual productivity to network productivity, that measures the improvements that occur because we’re doing things together and connected rather than as individuals. If everyone in the company has common goals, then there’s a big boost in productivity when people work together.

There’s a need to make hidden data visible and use it to drive collective intelligence – I see this all the time with the need for enterprise search and content management for static content, but also enterprise micro-blogging and other conversations that surface more transient ideas for consumption.

It’s all about improving processes and reducing the cost of doing business, although not necessarily in the structured BPM style of process improvement; instead, it’s about using social tools to change how people can collaborate and work together. This might include adding a social layer to existing tools, such as we see when collaboration is added to ECM and BPM but moving beyond that.

However, even though all of this is happening already, there’s the issue of bringing these tools, techniques and methods to the people who don’t normally use social networking for either business or pleasure. Do the revolutionary ideas that we hear bandied about at this conference really have a place in the cubicle farm? Interestingly, I’m seeing an arrogance exhibited at the conference that really puts me off; it manifested partly in the Microsoft-bashing at this morning’s panel, but comes down to a complete lack of respect for the structure of many existing enterprises. How do we respect what’s already there in those organizations while helping them to move into the 21st century?

Bryant showed some of the ways that they drive out behavioral use cases within organizations, match that to available social tools, then develop behavioral transition strategies that effectively “tricks” people into using these new tools in order to bridge the old methods and tools into the new. This is all about focusing on the tasks that people do and the things that they know, and providing some tweaks that get them doing things differently. For example:

  • For people who are addicted to email on their Blackberry, transition them to reading RSS feeds on the same platform (also within Outlook 2007): it looks similar, it provides a similar broadcast functionality, and lets them get away from filing and deleting the information.
  • Replace the phone book with a social network that provides the same information, and allows people to “friend” people who they contact frequently.
  • Get rid of the intranet, and create something that looks like your old intranet, but has edit buttons everywhere. In other words, turn your intranet into a wiki where anyone can update information if they have it. The information is more up-to-date and accurate, and gets people in the mode of being authors. It doesn’t mean that you have to allow every page to be editable by everyone, as Razorfish did, but can provide a more controlled environment that allows people to edit their team’s areas.
  • Create a place for employees to share and rate ideas, sort of like a suggestion box with voting.
  • Organize information in new and interesting ways, such as providing a social bookmarking tool to allow people to add tags to documents within their enterprise content management system in order to improve findability and indicate interest in documents. This can be used just to allow people to “organize their stuff”, or can be used in the case of an upcoming platform migration, where people can tag documents that should be migrated to a new ECM platform.

The thing to note about all of these ideas is that they are focused on things that people were already doing, and just tweaking the methods that they use to do them. That makes it a lot less threatening, and therefore much more likely to be adopted.

It also comes down to giving people choice, which is often not done inside large organizations: IT usually dictates which tools are used for which purpose, and which content goes into a wiki versus a content management system versus a blog. Unfortunately, years of having IT dictate tools and content location means that many enterprise users are somewhat sheep-like when it comes to choice: if you give them a choice, they’ll keep doing things the same old way since it’s the path of least resistance, and in today’s economy, they’re probably busy doing the work of more than one person. The reality is that although they could be more productive with the new tools, they have no time to learn how to use them and how to make them a part of their work environment.

Luis Suarez from IBM was in the audience, and talked about his own personal journey over the past year at moving himself – and the the people who he works with – off email and onto social media platforms such as blogs and wikis. When he would receive an email, he would show people how to use a different platform instead of email, such as SlideShare for sharing presentations.

There are still going to be barriers: salespeople may not want to share their information, even with their colleagues, because they are financially incented to not share; and middle management doesn’t want their teams to collaborate because they perceive that they’re losing control over what’s happening. As Bryant points out, the ultimate solution to these barriers is human mortality and natural selection.

Tagged
2009 06 23 Sandy Kemsley social software Comments (3)

Lessons learned from internal communities #e2conf

Peter Kim (formerly a Forrester analyst, now Dachis) moderated a panel on lessons learned from internal communities – that is, the social networking communities inside enterprises – with Jamie Pappas from EMC, Joan DiMicco from IBM Research and Patricia Romeo from Deloitte.

I met DiMicco at last year’s conference in a session with Jeff Schick talking about IBM’s social networking strategy, and she focuses on Beehive, their internal Facebook-like social networking site. I have friends who work for IBM who really like Beehive, and use it both for socializing and for finding like-minded people for work projects; the 60,000 other people inside IBM who also use it likely agree. Beehive is an internally-created research project that is only available within IBM; eventually, the functionality will be productized in Lotus Connections.

EMC’s EMC|ONE is similar in nature, providing an internal social network that helps to break down silos within the organization. They see this as a way to learn about social networking and work out some of the kinks with their usage, as a starting point for eventually engaging their customers and partners. They’ve used Jive’s ClearSpace as the technology platform, including the wiki and blog functionality. They have about 12,500 internal users with another 10,000 lurkers who haven’t registered as users but access the information, representing about 2/3 of the employee population.

Deloitte’s D Street was developed for the same reasons of connecting people across the organization, but was also explicitly created to make the workplace more attractive to the incoming Gen Y/millennial workers; in fact, Romeo comes from the HR side of the house, and this had a big HR push behind it. They built on a SharePoint 2007 platform, but customized it significantly to create a more complete experience. 90% of the US Deloitte employees have visited D Street at least once, and they currently have 20,000 profiles which represents about half of their employee population.

Peter Kim started on some panel questions:

  • With respect to who funded the social network, for Deloitte, it was HR; for EMC, it was marketing (since they have a goal to have an outward-facing site) and they still can’t get their HR involved.
  • DiMicco stated that the age demographics of the users match the demographics of IBM, and are not biased towards the young engineers that everyone else figured would dominate the site usage. I’m so relieved to hear this, since I’ve been saying that it’s not an age thing – her hypothesis is that people will socialize their achievements internally in order to support their own career growth, and that inside a (more or less) private walled garden, people will share and participate. Maybe the difference that people are attributing to age is really about what people are willing to expose in a public forum, rather than how willing people are to participate in social networks.
  • There was an interesting discussion about the balance between internal and external social networks, and whether there was some consideration of how people were already using sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook.
  • An audience question about attrition indicated that there is no real tracking of any dropoff in participation: once someone creates a profile on the enterprise social network, they’re considered to be a participant even if they never update it or contribute in any other way ever again. I think that this should be measured; otherwise, there will be a burst of people who sign up initially then never contribute again, without any good understanding of what is required in order to keep the community alive. IBM is doing some research in this area; they have a bit of an advantage because they are a research organization and are developing a product, which is quite a different focus than EMC and Deloitte who are just end-user organizations in this context.
  • D Street has a staff of 3 people who are monitoring and moderating content that is added to the site, plus technical resources to keep things running. Beehive is not actively monitored, but allows readers to flag content if inappropriate; a team of four people built and maintain the site. ECM|ONE has a bigger team of moderators, probably because they have a goal for outward participation and may have bigger legal/compliance/governance concerns.
  • IBM has a social media policy, grown out of their original blogging policy, which is part of their general policy on what is appropriate in the workplace; they have very few problems because it is just part of general employee behavior guidelines. EMC and Deloitte said pretty much the same: very few problems have occurred (although they both have content monitoring/moderation which might impact that) and mostly it falls under employee behavior guidelines.

There was an audience question about whether the usage levels of these three technology-oriented companies would be representative of enterprises in general, and how they marketed the social networking sites internally. EMC tailored the message for each individual group to tell them what’s in it for them, rather than trying to have a one-size-fits-all collaboration message. Deloitte, since they came in through the HR side, use the profiles as the launch point for any internal references to employees, which led people to click through and see the profiles, sometimes inspiring them to create their own. This tied into a discussion about measurement, and what each of these companies were measuring about their sites. IBM used Beehive as the networking site for an internal conference last year, so had the opportunity to measure how people used the site in the context of that conference (Beehive users must feel like lab rats sometimes), as well as some analysis of the social graph that is created as people use the site. DiMicco had a great term, “return on contribution”, to show how they measure the value that contributed content provides to the enterprise. I can completely get into the concept of return on contribution :)

This was a great panel with three very different views on enterprise social networking. In all cases, the companies see the social network as being a bigger part of their intranet, and even a part of their externally-facing network.

Tagged
2009 06 23 Sandy Kemsley social software Comments (2)

Enterprise 2.0 Reality Check panel #e2conf

I’m watching the panel entitled “Enterprise 2.0 Reality Check: What’s Working, What’s Not, What’s Next”, moderated by Matthew Fraser, and featuring Christian Finn of Microsoft, Nate Nash of BearingPoint, Neil Callahan of mktg and Ross Mayfield of Socialtext. Amazingly, I’ve found the optimal way to do this is to go back to my room and watch it streaming over the web, since the wifi is completely overloaded in the conference area and the seating is cramped.

It’s always difficult to blog a panel since the topics tend to vary widely (and quickly), so just a few thoughts:

  • The Enterprise 2.0 technology is mostly an evolution of what has come before, although the cultural changes are more revolutionary.
  • Finn talking about how collaboration spread throughout Microsoft, both through official and unofficial channels, which allowed SharePoint to gain a foothold internally. Small projects get it started, then people see the value and get executive sponsorship. Mayfield followed up by stating that revolutions happen when people don’t have a choice, and pondering how choice is changed by the very large footprint that SharePoint has.
  • Fraser asked the panel if there was an ROI for Enterprise 2.0; Finn responded by comparing the ROI of a document management system to that of a wiki; as Mayfield pointed out, there’s not a lot of “I” in the ROI of Enterprise 2.0. Callahan talked about the shift from “technology is scary” to “technology is fun”, bringing out the old chestnut about how our kids are all more tech-savvy than our CIOs (which I believe to be both incorrect and irrelevant); his point was that IT is no longer bringing the technology to business, but that line of business managers are having to make their own decisions about purchasing technology, shifting the ROI case from the boardroom to the LOB managers. This is a pretty interesting point, since it shows not just that LOB managers can make their own technology purchasing decisions, but that LOB managers must make their own technology decisions. Stowe Boyd popped up from the audience with a comment that we no longer look at the ROI of putting a telephone on someone’s desk (Finn had made the same point earlier about how we’re not giving up email any time soon), and that ROI may not be relevant in this case.

There was quite a good discussion about the ROI of Enterprise 2.0 that followed; check out the on-demand stream of the video. The large number of vendors/researchers/analysts asking questions (as opposed to actual end-user organizations) is noticeable.

You can also check the Twitter stream for this conference session here or for the entire conference here. I’m not a Microsoft supporter, but I have to say that the Twitterati was a bit hard on Finn (lots of “Mac versus PC” cheap shots): yes, he was talking a lot about SharePoint, which is not always used as a shining example of Enterprise 2.0, but the reality is that SharePoint is installed in a lot of “old economy” organizations; even if it’s not the best collaboration tool out there, it’s the only one that a lot of companies have, and it’s how they’re going to learn about some Enterprise 2.0 functionality. With one of my financial services clients, SharePoint is the only thing that remotely resembles collaboration that they have inside the firewall (and therefore approved for corporate information): several people there have actually laughed at me when I suggested using a wiki, and I’ve had to drag some of them kicking and screaming onto SharePoint just for document collaboration. Another client uses wikis, but only within IT, and is unwilling to open up wiki-based information collaboration to non-technical people. The game is changing, but it’s changing very, very slowly in some market segments.

Good panel, covering a lot of issues about both technology and people.

Tagged
2009 06 23 Sandy Kemsley social software Comments (0)

At the Enterprise 2.0 conference #e2conf

There’s been a lot of muttering that the Enterprise 2.0 conference is just a vendor love-fest, rather than having a significant attendance from people who are actually doing Enterprise 2.0. Whether it’s because the bloom is off this conference’s rose, or the economy, it’s telling that I was able to pick up a room here at the conference hotel through Priceline for $120/night, considerably down from the near-$300/night rate offered as the “special conference rate”. Last year, there was not a room to be had here several weeks in advance. Incredibly, they’re planning a second Enterprise 2.0 conference later this year in San Francisco; maybe the more relaxed west coast business attitudes are proving more receptive to Enterprise 2.0 in general, and certainly there will be a lot of vendors glad for only having to make the short drive north from the Valley.

Lots of disruption yesterday as flights into Boston were delayed or cancelled due to weather conditions, and the rainy weather here this week will impact attendance at the evening events, if not the conference itself. I arrived yesterday in time for the afternoon workshops, but left after 45 minutes of a not-very-insightful presentation (probably okay for newbies, but not if you’ve read anything about Enterprise 2.0). At least I made it to a couple of good social events in the evening, since this has become a conference where I come to hang out with interesting Enterprise 2.0 people rather than learn any new Enterprise 2.0 content.

I poked my head in to the starting keynotes today, but headed back to the breakfast table when Matthew Fraser started reading the captions on the tedious making-fun-of-management cartoons that he had pasted into his presentation. I’m now back in the conference room, electrical power at my feet but only sporadic wifi, and see a more interesting slate of presentations coming up for the remainder of the day. Up next is the keynote panel discussing an Enterprise 2.0 reality check, looking at what’s working, what’s not and what’s next. This afternoon, I plan to attend a panel on lessons learned from internal communities, Lee Bryant’s presentation on adoption strategies, and Aaron Levie’s (of Box.net) presentation on content-centric social networks. Stay tuned.

Tagged
2009 06 23 Sandy Kemsley social software Comments (0)

Enterprise 2.0 conference next month

I’ll be at the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston next month as part of their bloggers’ network. If you plan to attend, you can click the badge at the left for 30% off your registration, or to receive a free pavilion pass.

I am not compensated in any way if you click through for this, although I am receiving a free press pass to attend the conference (but paying my own travel expenses hence not staying at the hideously overpriced conference hotel).

I’m looking forward to seeing everyone there again this year.

2009 05 20 Sandy Kemsley Comments (0)

Enterprise 2.0: Town Hall Wrap-up

A short closing session for the conference, primarily to gather ideas and feedback from the attendees. Yes, we all thought that the wifi sucked, it was too cold in the conference areas and the vendor dog-and-pony shows have to be cut, but lots of kudos on the sessions. I didn’t attend any of the unconference sessions this week, but one person in this wrap-up commented that the regular sessions are a bit of a vendor-fest and a bit lightweight, and that the unconference sessions offered an alternative for more in-depth discussion on a topic. If you want to see some other discussions on the conference and content, check the Twitter stream (or at least the part of it where people used hashtags) here.

For many of us, the face-to-face networking and hallway meetings at the conference is a big part of it: there are many people here who I have known online for some time, and am meeting “in carbon” for the first time this week, plus many who I’m happy to be seeing again.

I still have to write up my excellent interviews/demos with Serena Software and Bungee Labs, which both had innovative (and very different) mashup goodies to show me; watch for those over the next day or so.

2008 06 12 Sandy Kemsley Comments (0)

Enterprise 2.0: Micro-blogging Panel

Dennis Howlett hosted a panel on micro-blogging (with a strong focus on Twitter, but not exclusively) that also included Chris Brogan of CrossTechMedia, Loren Feldman of 1938 Media, Rachel Happe of IDC and Laura Fitton of Pistachio Consulting. Although not explicitly stated in the session description, the focus was on the adoption of micro-blogging in the enterprise.

Fitton and Happe feel that micro-blogging allows us to exploit the power of weak ties. It changes the velocity of when we get to the value, or “a-ha”, moment. It’s like a gateway drug to social media, demonstrating the value of social media quickly. It allows for serendipity in business relationships, where people who you might not think of including in a project will see what you’re twittering about it and self-select themselves into it, or leverage your ideas in their own work. Fitton also live-tweeted her ideas on the advantages of micro-blogging in the enterprise (these are copied directly from her Twitter stream, hence are in reverse chrono order):

  • Instant field reports from remote sites, conferences, meetings…
  • (You may not know the answer, but you know someone who does.)
  • Fast, powerful way to query your own experts/source unique solutions by getting the question to the right niche expert quickly
  • Flatten hierarchies
  • Cultivate mentoring opportunities
  • Foster camraderie and esprit de corps
  • Share ideas
  • Create versatile mobile communications networks around sales teams, events, global projects and other geographically dispersed teams/groups
  • Create opportunities for collaboration, contextualization and spreading ideas fast
  • Tap into and create a powerful network of loose ties within your organization

Feldman took the opposite tack, saying that he thinks that micro-blogging will never take hold in the enterprise because of the openness and the brevity of the medium — the very things that people love micro-blogging — and Brogan mostly agreed that it would likely only be used for internal technical communications. In fact, Feldman referred to Twitter as “dopey” (he’s a video guy) and thinks that text, particularly 140 characters at a time, isn’t rich enough for the sort of immediate communication that Twitter is trying to provide. As someone who drives thought processes through writing, I don’t agree: I consume (but rarely create) audio and video at times, but text is a much more useful medium for me.

There was a lengthy discussion, including both the panelists and the audience, on whether enterprises would do this on a purely internal system, or on a public system like Twitter, and the relative advantages. There is no suggestion that micro-blogging would entirely replace other methods of enterprise communication, but it can augment them for cases when you want asynchronous but nearly-instant communication to a very broad audience in a public manner, with the capability for interaction between a large number of participants. It can change the velocity of business, critical in today’s market. It can also be a distraction, if people are micro-blogging (or IM’ing or Blackberry’ing) during a meeting or conversation, but that’s a matter of protocol and culture. I don’t even take interview notes on my computer because I think that it gets in the way between me and the interviewee in a face-to-face situation, so I’m very unlikely to ever micro-blog while in a small group, but others are more comfortable with that. If you’re micro-blogging in the context of real-life conversation, then it’s really no different than taking notes on paper in terms of attention.

Enterprise users are using social networks, whether their enterprise masters like it or not. If their work environment gets locked down so that they can’t use them there, they’ll use them from their mobile device (hence the popularity of platforms like Twitter, which is easily consumable on a mobile browser or purely through SMS). Enterprise computing policies will never go away, but it’s time for enterprises to realize that they might actually gain an advantage through their employees participating in social applications like micro-blogging. At the end of the day, I’m not convinced about the value of micro-blogging to me, but I’m not ready to write it off: I likely just haven’t had my a-ha moment yet. That being said, this week is the first time that I met someone who, on hearing my name, told me that they just started following me on Twitter.

2008 06 12 Sandy Kemsley blogging Comments (4)

Enterprise 2.0: Enterprise Mashups Technical Deep-Dive

Nicole Carrier of IBM, who was on the enterprise mashups panel yesterday, returned this morning to dig into more of the details behind mashups, particularly as implemented on their platform, Lotus Mashups (which I believe started life as QEDwiki). She started by defining mashups and widgets, then outlined what makes a mashup unique in terms of scope, process, users and technology. There are some key differences between mashups on the consumer internet and within the enterprise, however: enterprise mashups typically need to access enterprise systems, which might need to be unlocked/wrapped for accessibility (e.g., create widgets and feeds to access that data or functionality), and enterprise assets available for mashup need to be cataloged in some way.

She walked us through building a mashup with Lotus Mashups, pulling in widgets and feeds from various data sources as well as Google gadgets and arranging them on a page. More than just a portal interface, this environment allows you to create “wiring” between the objects on the page in order to allow data or selections in one widget to impact or filter another one. Once created, pages can be shared with others by publishing in a catalog, and other users can be given read-only or edit permissions on pages.

Joel Farrell, the chief architect of IBM’s InfoSphere MashupHub, joined Carrier to show how some of the data sources are discovered and/or created for use in mashups, and how they’re shared with others.

This quickly turned into an in-depth review of how to use the IBM mashup products, and a lot of the audience started to bail out. Including me.

Tagged ,
2008 06 12 Sandy Kemsley Comments (0)

Enterprise 2.0: RSS and Business Processes at Wallem

For the last breakout today, I went to the session featuring of Patrick Slesinger of Wallem (a shipping company). I don’t know anything about shipping, but their requirements aren’t different from a lot of other organizations: involvement and transparency to customers into business processes, internal decision support, long-term accessibility to event data. They needed to make their processes mobile and make the right information available anywhere, without using email.

Their solution, using K2 for BPM, Attensa for RSS and SharePoint as a content repository, integrates process-driven applications with managed RSS. The solution uses K2 to manage processes, then pushes the process event log (or some filtered version of it) over to the Attensa feed server, where it can be served up to a web interface or delivered by email. The advantage of using a feed server for this is that it provides complete device/platform independence for consuming the event feed, as well as providing multiple formats for consumption. An enterprise RSS feed server provides things such as integrating your LDAP database for defining users and groups, and allows for easy assignment of specific feeds to users and groups. Users can have feeds assigned to them, which they can’t unassign, but they can use the same tool for reading other feeds as well. They can read a specific feed item on one platform, and it’s marked as read everywhere (as you would expect). The system also tracks who reads which feeds, when and for how long, making it possible to track what information is actually being used, and ensure that users are accessing the relevant information before making decisions.

Slesinger showed a demo of the system, showing how tasks that are assigned to a user show up in their feed reader; clicking on the details in the feed item pulls them into a web form to complete the task. There are many BPM products now that allow a feed to be created for any user’s inbox or other queues; his earlier architecture diagram led me to believe that they’re not doing that (if K2 is even capable of it), but extracting events from the K2 event log instead. In the example shown, the captain of a ship was actually participating in a workflow where he received task notification through a feed reader rather than in email or directly through the BPM product’s inbox.

The results:

  • Increased visibility into systems and information sources
  • Mobile connected process and feedback loops
  • Alignment of information and process creating knowledge and value
  • Email clutter reduced
  • Understanding what information is required: who, what, when, where, why

Their customers — the ships’ owners — saw huge savings as well: using timely information and appropriate processes for deciding where ships take on fuel and oil, the annual customer savings are about $400M. They’re looking to do more with this in terms of analytics, search, and expanding the mobile RSS capabilities.

I’ve been blogging for a couple of years about how RSS and BPM could work together, and many of the vendors have integrated in the functionality, but this is the first real case study that I’ve seen of the two working together on this scale.

Tagged
2008 06 11 Sandy Kemsley mashups Comments (5)

Enterprise 2.0: Enterprise Mashups Panel

David Berlind hosted a panel on enterprise mashups, with Michalene Todd of Serena, Nicole Carrier of IBM, Lauren Cooney of Microsoft (recently of IBM) and Charlotte Goldsbery of Denodo. I was supposed to moderate this panel, but when the vendors started treating it like a sponsored panel by switching out participants, and the conference organizers refused to kick in for any of my expenses (in an outrageously biased policy where they pay some speakers’ expenses but not others depending on who you complain to), I decided that it wasn’t worth the hassle and bowed out. David’s a great moderator and knows a lot about mashups, but ultimately, I think that he allowed this panel to be hijacked by the vendors, with the exception of Lauren, who speaks her own mind rather than the Microsoft party line. Serena totally screwed up on this one by bumping Kelly Shaw off the panel — a panel that’s described as being full of “girl uber-geeks” — and replacing her with a non-technical corporate marketing person who was out of her depth, and Denodo didn’t do much better by putting in a self-described salesperson.

There was an interesting discussion about how data is exposed to be consumed by mashups, e.g., ATOM/RSS, and the implications with respect to the security of the underlying data, the ability of mashup platforms to consume that data, and how to appropriately encapsulate data so that a non-technical person creating a mashup can’t do evil things to the underlying data source, like doing a search on a non-indexed field in a large database table. You need to consider the interfaces for accessing the data and services: SOAP, RESTful services, web services, etc.

Realistically, business users still can’t do mashups, in spite of what the vendors tell you: there’s just too much technical stuff that they need to know in order to do mashups still. Although it’s easy to drag and drop things within a graphical environment, that’s not the issue: it’s understanding the data sources and their interactions that’s critical. The real target for many of the mashup platforms, as I’ve stated many times before, is for the semi-technical types within business units who are now creating end-user computing applications using Excel, Access and other readily-available tools. I don’t think that’s anything to be ashamed of, and striving for the goal of allowing any business user to do mashups is unrealistic. I was at a client site recently, and of all the claims adjusters and their managers who I talked with there, I can’t imagine that a single one of them would be inclined to even try to create a mashup or — without intending any insult to them in any way — have the skills to do so. Likely the closest that business users will come to building mashups will be configuring their own personalized portal within an existing framework, similar to iGoogle; a proper mashup framework may also allow the portal widgets/gadgets to interact, such as using selections in one widget as a filter for another on the same page. A lot of the good business applications, the things that are now being handled by other MS-Office-based end-user applications, are spreadsheet-like in nature; data visualization is a critical part of mashups, but there’s rarely a Google map involved.

Another issue is whether mashups are ready for prime time: are they really intended to be deployed as production applications, or are they just an easy-to-use prototyping environment? What about underlying data sources that aren’t under your control (like Google Maps) in terms of SLAs and fault tolerance? Although internal systems can also have failures, at least you have some degree of control over your own IT resources in terms of high availability of applications and their data sources, and any critical external services that you use — whether in a mashup or any other type of application — has to come from a company with whom you can nail down a believable SLA.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
2008 06 11 Sandy Kemsley mashups Comments (6)

Enterprise 2.0: Mid-day update

Today I have several briefings with vendors and haven’t been at a lot of sessions; since I take briefing notes on paper, those won’t be published until I’ve had a chance to organize them into posts.

The only session that I was at this morning was Andrew McAfee’s panel with several organizations who have implemented Enterprise 2.0, talking about the reality of its adoption and how the corporate culture impacts that, but I always find it hard to blog about panels.

One interesting comment from a CIA analyst on the panel talking about Intellipedia: the hardest thing to do is to give up control, but if you give up control, your employees will do you right; resist allowing management or IT to lock down the system or otherwise restrict participation. If the US intelligence community can learn to do that, I have hope that any organization can, too.

There was another comment on identifying applications for wikis: check your email to see where the most “email volleyball” is going on where the emails have attachments, and consider moving the content of those attachments (and the process of their updates) to a wiki.

Tagged ,
2008 06 11 Sandy Kemsley Comments (0)

Enterprise 2.0: Stowe Boyd on Web Culture

Last session of the day before the cocktail party — always a difficult spot — but I’m fascinated by Stowe Boyd’s topic of web culture and the changing ethos of work. His work focuses on the “anthropology of the web” (although I think of it also as the sociology of the web).

Boyd’s presentation style is low-key and his slides are typically a single word with a simple graphic, but his message is compelling. We’re finding new ways to communicate on the web. This is bottom-up growth that we’re building for ourselves, without any blueprint or centralized control; in fact, no one really knows how many servers are even on the web. That’s not different, conceptually, from what’s happening inside enterprises as social applications take hold: it’s a grassroots revolution.

He talked about the disappearance of the “third space”; most people typically have three spaces that they inhabit: home, work, and a social location like a barbershop, a pub or even church. With the rise of both television and suburbia (see Clay Shirky’s recent Web 2.0 presentation for more about this), we started spending less time at our social location, a bit more time at work, and a lot more time at home watching TV. In order to fulfill that basic human needs for socializing, some of us started taking that socializing online, spending less time watching TV in favor of online social networking.

He harkened back to Henry Ford, who once fired someone for laughing while working in the assembly line, positing that anyone working for a large conservative corporation should keep their online identity discreet, quoting others who recommend blogging anonymously if you work for a big company. Many large enterprises are disturbed by the idea of their employees having any sort of public persona that doesn’t follow company guidelines, and social networking inside the enterprise is a huge stretch. These are the same companies who didn’t want to give employees internet access, IM, external email, or (in a long-ago world) a telephone on their desk because it might affect their productivity, without considering that it might actually increase their productivity as well as their creativity.

There’s a lot of power moving from the center to the edge: it’s happened with news reporting and media (the fact that you’re reading about the Enterprise 2.0 conference on the blog of an independent analyst is proof of that), but it’s also happening inside companies and in all walks of life. That doesn’t mean that things are chaotic, since often some sort of order will emerge in spite of the fact that there’s no centralized control. We create networks and pseudo-kinship with those who we socialize with online, where community and participation means more than titles and position. Old culture is disappearing due to these grassroots efforts and web culture: media, government, religion and other areas are shifting from centralized control to social collaboration. The tools are driving the group dynamic, e.g., group decision-making changes vastly when you collaboration using IM and other online tools rather than face-to-face.

Many of us “edglings” work in virtual environments: I have customers in countries other than my own, who I’ve never met face-to-face, yet with whom I collaborate effectively to complete projects. “Centroids”, on the other hand, tend to work in more structured authoritarian environments. Boyd ended the presentation with a table that’s reprinted from his blog post of a couple of years ago, Edglings: A Well-Ordered Humanism and the Future of Everything, comparing the centroid and edgling views: well worth checking out.

After spending a day in sessions where every second person has a laptop open, I’m struck by the fact that people are just as rude with their laptop sounds as they are with muting their cellphone ringtone. Hey people, the only one who wants to hear that cute squishy noise when you get an instant message is you. Please, find that mute volume control on your laptop.

Tagged
2008 06 10 Sandy Kemsley Comments (2)

Enterprise 2.0: Oracle’s Initiatives for Enterprise 2.0

Steve Diamond, an Oracle product manager for on-demand CRM, led a breakout session on their Enterprise 2.0 initiatives. I’m attending a dinner tonight with Oracle executives tonight and will undoubtedly hear more about this.

After 30+ minutes of lightweight “here’s what Enterprise 2.0 is and why it’s important”, he finally started to talk about what new and exciting things that they’re doing, but I’d mostly nodded off by then. Guess I will have to pay attention tonight. He did talk about their Social CRM application and about what’s happening in their internal AppsLab skunkworks, but it just wasn’t enough to hold my attention and I slipped out early.

The buzz around here seems to be that Oracle doesn’t have enough of their Enterprise 2.0 story sorted out yet, and I’m still waiting for Oracle to prove that notion wrong.

Tagged
2008 06 10 Sandy Kemsley Comments (6)

Enterprise 2.0: IBM’s Social Networking Directions

I had a great opportunity today at lunch for a one-hour session with Jeff Schick, VP of social networking at IBM, and Joan DiMicco who came to IBM after doing media studies at MIT and is one of the key people behind Beehive. There were only seven of us plus these two quite technical IBM’ers in a suite upstairs in the hotel, giving us an opportunity to have an informal roundtable discussion: a sort of social networking nerd heaven.

We started out with a discussion about Beehive — a sort of enterprise Facebook that IBM has developed for internal use — which has gained 33,000 users in less than a year since internal release. That’s 10% of IBM’s workforce, which is a pretty significant adoption rate considering that it’s not required for creating any sort of work product. Beehive is purely a social platform, not a work platform, to allow IBM employees to create social and personal connections. I have friends within IBM, mostly former FileNet people who were absorbed during the acquisition, and one of them speaks glowingly of Beehive as a way to find other people with similar interests to her in order to find people whom with to collaborate.

Schick said that people are starting to be freer with the information that they share on Beehive, and we had a discussion about whether this additional degree of sharing tended to increase the camaraderie amongst co-workers. They’re seeing a blending of personal and professional information published on Beehive, which tends to enrich the communication between people since you have a more multi-faceted view of someone who you’ve met only online. He also talked about adding social concepts to business applications, for example, being able to link directly from someone’s name on a specific business transaction to other information that they have shared, such as shared files or profile information.

Jeffrey Walker of Atlassian was also in attendance, and he asked about the issue of having multiple social networks and how he really just wants a filtered version of Facebook for the enterprise, not yet another social platform. DiMicco responded that people who do external social networking in addition to Beehive tend to create very different profiles in, for example, Facebook and Beehive: they might post photos of their kids within Beehive but not in an open Facebook photo album. In other words, they use Beehive and other social networks for different reasons. Schick added that you can have links to your other social network profiles on your Beehive profile, so if you already have a lot set up elsewhere, you can link to it rather that replicate it, but that (in my opinion) devalues it somewhat since you don’t have federated searching across all of someone’s profiles if they choose to keep only a minimum in Beehive. Later, we heard about Fringe, a sort of internal FriendFeed to aggregate all of the internal and external information sources to provide some level of federated search, which does ease some of those concerns.

The interesting thing about IBM and Enterprise 2.0 is that IBM definitely eats their own dogfood; in fact, they eat it long before they consider serving it up to their customers. A few years ago, I heard about IBM’s Dogear (a social bookmarking tool, like Del.icio.us for the enterprise) at a Toronto-based Enterprise Camp; at the time, I tried to dig around and figure out when it would become available as a product, but they used it extensively internally before finally productizing it. Similarly, there are plans to productize Beehive and Fringe as behind-the-firewall social applications for enterprises under the Lotus Connections brand, now that they’ve had a chance to polish off the rough edges through their own internal use. These aren’t just for big enterprises: some smaller companies are using them as well.

The interesting opportunity is that IBM puts a stamp of credibility on the whole social networking space by offering applications to enterprises, which will undoubtedly benefit other social application vendors as the tide rises. They also see (rightly) that their social technology is far ahead of Microsoft’s, although it is being positioned against SharePoint in some cases. Schick sees content management as a key part of collaboration, and integration between the Lotus Connections products and ECM platforms such as FileNet, Documentum and SharePoint will allow them to make that even stronger.

Tagged , , , ,
2008 06 10 Sandy Kemsley social software Comments (1)

Enterprise 2.0: Ross Mayfield on Elevating the Enterprise 2.0 Conversation

Ross Mayfield of Socialtext gave the last keynote of the morning, discussing the evolution of wiki usage in enterprises. Many enterprise systems started out being about automating the business processes, and we ended up with file-centric paradigms of collaboration and rigid document management practices. Wikis, on the other hand, allowed for less rigid collaboration, although it started with a primarily technical user base. Since the introduction of wikis in enterprise environments, the use cases have evolved:

  • 2002: techies for project communication
  • 2004: business user alternative to email
  • 2006: internal Wikipedia
  • 2008: process-specific solutions

The real advantage comes when the wikis moves from being “above the flow”, where it stores the artifacts of a business process, to being “in the flow”, that is, an inherent part of the business process. The goal is not to automate the business processes to drive down costs, but to support groups to collaborate on exceptions on processes. In order to do this, enterprise processes, have to be redesigned with transparency and participation capabilities; I’m seeing this from many of the BPM vendors that allow for spontaneous and ad hoc collaboration at any point in the process where the participant feels the need.

Mayfield also used the keynote as an opportunity to talk about their latest product, SocialCalc, a social spreadsheet created in conjunction with Dan Bricklin (the creator of the original VisiCalc spreadsheet, who has lately been dabbling in the concepts of wiki spreadsheets). It looks like this provides the same functionality as Google Docs spreadsheets, but in an on-premise solution behind the firewall, in case you didn’t buy into the Google cloud message this morning.

Tagged , ,
2008 06 10 Sandy Kemsley social software Comments (2)