Skip to content

{ Category Archives } E2.0 conf

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.

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.

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 ,

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

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 , , , , , , , ,

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 ,

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

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

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 optional 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 , , , ,

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 , ,

Enterprise 2.0: AIIM’s State of the Industry Study

Dan Keldsen and Carl Frappaolo of AIIM gave a quick review of the recent AIIM study on Enterprise 2.0. Their first finding: age doesn’t really matter, culture does. Finally, someone else who sees this: I’m so tired of the view from people my age who make it an age issue when really the issue is that they’re not adaptive to the Web 2.0 culture. I also liked that the study classified me as “gen X” rather than “boomer”.

Other than that, I found the talk a bit content-free, but there’s not a lot that you can do in 10 minutes.

Tagged , ,

Enterprise 2.0: How Cloud Computing is Shaping Enterprise Technology

The Enterprise 2.0 conference kicked off yesterday with some workshops, but I just flew in this morning and am at my first session of the day (although not *the* first session of the day), a keynote by Google’s Rishi Chandra on cloud computing. The same key message (buy lots of Google cloud computing :) ) but some complementary points to the presentation that I saw by Matthew Glotzbach at IT360 a couple of months ago; considering that they’re both in product marketing for Google Enterprise, that’s not surprising.

The focus of the presentation is cloud computing, and how the trends in consumer applications are starting to bleed over into the enterprise world. Chandra discussed several trends in cloud computing for the enterprise:

  1. Simplicity wins, and applications that provide targeted functionality well are more likely to succeed than monolithic all-singing, all-dancing applications.
  2. Rise of the power collaborator, as the important things being done in many organizations shift from being individual efforts to team efforts. A key team member will be the well-connected collaborators who can leverage the skills of others to help the entire team to succeed.
  3. Economics of IT are changing, and many companies are looking at combinations of on-premise software and software as a service.
  4. Barriers to the adoption of cloud computing for the enterprise are falling away: connectivity, user experience, reliability, offline access and security are all valid issues, but are all being addressed. He made some great points here (with which I totally agree) about the illusion of security of your existing internal systems, and how better security be achieved by putting corporate data in the cloud for remote access instead of having it on an unsecured laptop that can be stolen. You already trust a variety of outsourced vendors with your data — payroll, legal, IT — so how is outsourcing your data and application infrastructure any different? In fact, it used to be quite common (in the days when everyone had a mainframe) for third parties such as IBM and many long-dead competitors to host many companies’ data centers.

I’m totally on with cloud computing: my email is hosted on Google Apps, and I backup daily to an encrypted Amazon S3 service. Although I would not be keen to have my laptop stolen, I had a moment a couple of days ago when my laptop spontaneously died, and I felt absolutely no panic about it. It turned out to be only a temporary coma, but I knew that I could recreate my working environment on a new machine in pretty short order.

By the way, yes, there’s free wifi.

Tagged ,

LongJump

I really hate going through a lengthy interview about a hot new product, only to have them tell me at the end that half of what they told me is off the record. Not embargoed until some near-future announcement date, just off the record. Grrr.

Other than that, I had a pretty good demo last week from Pankaj Malviya, CEO of LongJump, who I missed at last week’s Enterprise 2.0 conference. LongJump is the brand for a service provided by Relationals, which has been in business since 2003 with a hosted CRM plaform targetted at media companies. Bonus marks to Pankaj, who starts into the presentation saying that their target users are business managers who organize information and create workflow, then in an aside, says “I see that you’re a business process management expert”, which means that either he’s looked at my blog or his PR person has briefed him well. :)

All of their solutions, including both those with the Relationals brand and the new LongJump hosted solutions, are focussed on the small to medium business market. LongJump, in fact, is created on the same underlying platform as the Relationals CRM, including components such as the MySQL database.

LongJump is a platform for creating data-driven, widget-based web applications, as well as offering a shared catalog environment for offering those applications by subscription to other users, including monetization of the applications. The application assembly environment is similar to an iGoogle home page, or other similar portal environments: widgets can be placed on the page, although they can’t exchange data or do other data mashup/filtering functionality like Yahoo Pipes. They have their own widget format, but it’s similar to the Google widget format and they’re working on making it identical so that widget created for Google could be used in LongJump.

LongJump Asset Tracking demo

The demo application was an asset tracking application, and I didn’t see much difference from the seemly endless array of lightweight web-based application development environments until he started showing me how to apply workflow to objects. There’s no graphical process mapper, but you can set states through which an object must pass and the predefined responses at each of those states, which in turn creates a sequence of tasks assigned to specific people or roles. The workflows can be triggered by data events, such as “renewal date less than 30 days”. This is crude from a BPM standpoint — it reminds me a lot of what IBM had in their Content Manager application a couple of years ago to do simple object-based workflow routing — but I haven’t seen anything else like it in this space. They plan to enhance this capability further, and I think that they could have a real competitive differentiator here.

Each application is “packaged” for publication on their catalog; for example, the Asset Tracking application above consists of all of the tabs that you see along the top (Home, Directory, PCs and Servers, Phones, Equipment, Reports, About), where each of those tabs has its own set of widgets and the underlying data sources. The catalog then makes published applications available for subscription by others, and handles the monetization.

LongJump is in an early (closed) beta now, with an open beta expected by end of year — I find this a longish timeline for this sort of application, but it’s coming from a more traditional company so I expect that their internal test and release procedures are different from the usual hair-on-fire Web 2.0 startup. They received 1,800 applicants for the closed beta, and have about 10 customers on there now.

Enterprise 2.0: Zoho

I had a chance for a one-on-one chat and demo with Raju Vegesna, Zoho’s evangelist, while at Enterprise 2.0 this week; since I do face-to-face interviews with a paper notebook, however, it’s taken me until the flight home from Boston to find time to transcribe my notes.

I’ve played around with Zoho, Google Apps and a few other Office 2.0 applications, but find it hard to find the compelling argument for me to start using them: I’m often in places with flaky, expensive or non-existent wifi, and it just doesn’t make sense to have my productivity impacted by the inability to connect to the internet. Case in point, I’m at 35,000′ right now, writing this blog post in Windows Live Writer, not in the Movable Type online environment where the blog is actually domiciled.

A few new releases in Zoho, however, have me willing to try it out: Zoho Wiki and Zoho Meeting. I’ve used another free hosted wiki, PBwiki, but they’ve only just introduced WYSIWYG editing and it still feels a bit kludgy; I could use MediaWiki on my own hosting platform, but they don’t have WYSIWYG editing at all, and I think that’s a major barrier to adoption. So seeing Zoho Wiki, which uses Zoho Writer (the word processor) as the text editor, makes me want to give that a try instead. It also has some nice capabilities for direct integration with some of the other Zoho tools that I want to test out.

The big news this week is Zoho Meeting, and that’s what Raju and I spent most of our time on. Currently free, although I’m expecting some sort of monetization model in the future, this is an online meeting and desktop sharing application, like Webex. It requires the meeting host to used a downloaded Windows application, but the attendees can either use a (Windows-only) ActiveX control, or a Java or Flash plug-in on other operating systems. There’s a high degree of integration with other applications: you can launch a Zoho meeting from a Skype chat, or embed it into a page of a presentation on Zoho Show if you only need to hop into full desktop sharing mode for part of a presentation. The meeting session is downloadable afterwards as a Flash file for replay, and can be used to generate a discussion forum thread with the meeting archive linked in. And, like Webex and other desktop sharing applications, it can also be used for remote control of a Windows PC: you leave the host running on the computer to be controlled (say, your home computer), then enter the meeting from another computer and (presumabely password protected) take control of the host computer.

I also saw Zoho Notebook, a free-form authoring application similar to Microsoft OneNote (but hosted), where you can add pages in a sort of binder/notebook paradigm, then put any type of content on the pages. There’s version control on the objects, and read-only and read/write security can be applied at the paragraph level for sharing.

Zoho Creator was interesting, too: a forms-based database application development environment, similar to a number of others ones that I’ve seen like DabbleDB. You create an application by drawing the associate user interface form, which in turn generates the database required for the fields on the form. You can edit the script behind each form object to change the default behaviours and add more functionality. The data can be viewed in the form or in a table view. Multiple database tables with joins are supported, and data can be imported and exported from the tables.

There’s also a QuickRead browser plug-in for IE or Firefox that acts as a viewer for many different office document types, insteach of having to launch the behemoth MS-Office application just to view a document that’s linked on a website. The browsers handle a lot of the document types natively, but QuickRead seems to handle many more that aren’t supported by the browsers themselves.

Also in the category of fun things to do with MS-Office documents, there’s a WebDAV sort of plug-in for MS-Office applications to allow the documents authored in those environments to be replicated online, which provides an easy transition path for Office users who want to get started on Zoho.

The last thing that we looked at was Zoho Mail; I’m not sure that Raju intended to show me that, but I saw it on his screen when he was getting set up for the demo, and it piqued my interest. It’s still in closed beta with 20-30,000 users, getting ready for general release in a couple of months. By providing some really slick interlinking of content types between Mail and the other Zoho applications, and a much more MS-Outlook style of interface (including the ability to see all attachments to all messages as a sort of document store), they’re looking to add value over what Google Mail provides. I suppose if you can’t be bought by them, then you have to try and beat them.

Enterprise 2.0: Town Hall wrapup

The conference finished with a general “town hall” session with Jessica Lipnack of NetAge and Stowe Boyd of Blue Whale Labs. I had thought that there was too much preaching to the converted going on here, but I sat with Eric Hoffert of ShareMethods during the session and as a vendor, he’s talked with a lot of customers here and saw many who are just getting started or looking at how to start. I stand corrected. :)

They redid the same survey (by SMS) as to whether the attendees felt that incumbent enterprise applications would add on Web 2.0 functionality and remain dominant in that area, or whether new Web 2.0 applications would take precedence; Web 2.0 went from 55% to 75% of the vote since the original vote during the Tuesday keynote. The IT versus user control question saw user control gain in popularity from 77% to 85%, and in the hype versus reality showdown, reality went from 69% to 89% popularity.

Boyd saw that the enterprise people attending are eager to adopt the best of Web 2.0, but still maintain the things that work for them from the older technology; unfortunately, they’re having difficulty figuring out which is which, and which is likely to be valuable in the future. The enterprise software vendors, on the other hand, are very clear about the fact that not only do they have the answers, but they’re going to make the decisions for you. He feels that the Enterprise 2.0 moniker is being misapplied in many cases: that it is really radically different, and that many of the vendors (especially the older enterprise software vendors who are positioning Web 2.0 as “old wine in new bottles”) just don’t get it yet. He gives no passing grades to any of the parties involved (watch McAfee’s keynote to see what he’s grading), except to give the users a B- for effort. There’s a lot of things going on, but not a lot of understanding of how to apply those in a practical fashion.

I had to duck out a few minutes early to catch my flight, in the middle of audience members telling about their “veil lifting from the eyes” revelation during the conference:

  • Allow the users to define what they need (”if they come, we will build it”), rather than having IT decide (”if we build it, they will come”)
  • The value of folksonomies over taxonomies
  • Software-as-a-service on the way to becoming a utility rather than being considered a business risk
  • The blogosphere is an incredible source of information, both about the authors and the content

Enterprise 2.0: Thomas Vander Wal

The last breakout session was with Thomas Vander Wal of InfoCloud, talking about tagging in the enterprise. He started out defining tagging and its uses: simple data/metadata externally applied to an object, which is used for sorting and as a hook for aggregating; tags provide an identifier or description of an item, or are a personal marker. He then looked at how the shift occurs from a top-down taxonomy to a bottom-up folksonomy: the result of personal free tagging by the consumer of the data, using their own vocabulary and viewpoint, for their own retrieval, but shared so others can use it. This is not so much a matter of people categorizing in a taxonomic sense, but in finding ways to connect information.

As I saw demonstrated at a recent conference, all of this makes librarians and taxonomists nervous, because they think of this as a specialized science that only they can do, and that the little people will just screw this up if you let them do it themselves.

Vander Wal showed how del.icio.us extended the tagging basics of object and metadata to include identity: you can track the tags of people whose opinions that you value. By looking at the object-metadata-identity relationship, you can now see, for example, what other people tagged with the same tags that you use in order to find new information that may be relevant.

He then moved on to what happens when you add community into the mix, which tends to apply some structure to the metadata because of the common vocabulary and understanding within the community or enterprise. He sees taxonomy as more more likely to be driven internally by a company, whereas a folksonomy is driven by the customer: folksonomy is emergent and fluid.

He discussed the business tensions between taxonomy and folksonomy in the enterprise: the balance between naming control and people’s vocabulary; using sample groups versus allowing every perspective to contribute; create in-house versus an outside service; the high cost of developing a taxonomy for a pre-determined value versus a low-cost taxonomy with an unknown value; consistency versus the emergent. In general, organizations spend a lot less money on their intranet than their customer-facing sites so it’s usually harder to find things; adding tagging to an intranet can hugely add value by allowing people to find information on the intranet. There’s also opportunities for business-to-business tagging, which can be used to align the vocabulary between two companies, and for customers to use tagging on an enterprise’s community-facing sites.

For an enterprise’s external sites, tagging can provide an improved understanding of the customers and market by looking at what terms that people are using to tag certain objects and pages — this could be an incredibly powerful yet inexpensive market research tool. It allows an organization to capture all of the current terminology around their products and usage to more easily target messaging around the products, and even develop market segmentation. In general, it provides a much better perspective on the customer base, or at least that portion of it that tags.

For an intranet, tagging can help improve findability and improve the context in which pages are understood. It allows for easy sharing of resources, and a cost-effective method of building a taxonomy so that vocabulary becomes shared across silos for disambiguation within the corporation.

In order to do all this, there needs to be some monitoring and analysis tools: what tags are being used, inbound and outbound traffic levels, if spam is occurring, and what’s happening in external tagging sites as well as any internal tagging systems. Analysis of all this allows you to look at usage patterns, build synonym repositories, identify people with common interests, and build some order and structure.

As tagging scales up in an enterprise, it always starts for reasons of personal productivity, then moves on to the serendipity of finding things with related tags, then a more mature social tagging where people are more aware of what’s happening in their community, and finally becomes a complex social system. I find interesting analogies to how my usage of del.icio.us has changed over time: I started using it just to get control of my browser bookmarks, and eventually moved on to using it to auto-generate daily blog posts of the new pages that I tag, along with my comments on each link.

Vander Wal walks us through the phases of interaction — this guy talks at light-speed, and I’m completely unable to capture all of this, which is unfortunate since it’s really, really interesting — and discusses the viral nature of it, especially within enterprises where the value of shared tags is usually much more obvious than in the wild.

He looks at the reasons that people tag, which are primarily for their own use and for re-findability. He touches on the social aspects of tagging, such as the categories that I use for posts on this blog, or tags that I add to my friends’ Flickr photos if I can add value with my unique metadata. There’s always issues of privacy, and in fact, del.icio.us now allows for private tagging in addition to publicly-visible tags, although many social networking sites don’t provide any privacy around the tags that you add to objects. Ma.gnolia, another social bookmarking site, also allows for private groups to be created, which is a great way for enterprises to get started with tagging without having to bring it in-house, but still providing privacy of those tags to just the group.The concepts of tagging are moving into many other areas, such as Microsoft Vista now allowing tagging of files.

There’s some interesting clustering that can be done with tagging as well, looking at the common co-occurrences of tags, which Flickr is doing now so that you can look at a group of photos that have common tags that are of interest to you.

Vander Wal stated that he doesn’t find tag clouds to be particularly useful for most applications, instead preferring a flat list of tags, but sees that tag clouds can be good for understanding the essence of an object or page.

If you want to see an example of tagging at use to great effect in a consumer retail environment, go find Kevin Federline’s CD on Amazon and check out the tags that customers associated with the product (about halfway down the page): “talentless” floats to the top.

He finished up with some thoughts on interoperability, which I see it going to be an increasingly important issue as the use of tagging proliferates, and multiple platforms are used.

Enterprise 2.0: Group Intelligence Panel

Luis Solis of GroupSystems moderated a panel on Group Intelligence Across the Enterprise: 5 Keys to Success, with David Marshak of the Unified Communications & Collaboration group at IBM, Alex Pentland of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence and John Abele of Boston Scientific. One interesting thing was that Solis invited us to SMS him with questions during the presentation; not sure that that’s all that efficient, but maybe will pull a few of the introverts out of the closet.

Solis stated that personal productivity is (so) yesterday, even though that’s what a lot of this conference seems to have focussed on, and that we need to focus on group intelligence. He feels that collaboration is a too generic concept, and breaks it down into ad hoc (socializing, and 2 peers notifying or discussing) and structured group collaboration (lecturing, and many-to-many exploration/innovation). He sees the many-to-many exploration/innovation is the interesting part of collaboration for enterprises, since that leads to problem-solving, but that it’s hard work because it relies on trust within the group, a supportive culture, and confident leadership. Interestingly, he sees that American culture can be anti-collaborative because of a natural command-and-control mentality, whereas other countries (he mentioned Sweden in particular) have a more inherent bent towards collaboration in their national culture that spills over into their corporate culture. It would be interesting to see where Canada lies on this spectrum.

Pentland spoke about sensor networks, and the management of face-to-face communications. Using an on-body sensor (a sort of smart name tag), they measured who interacted with whom over the course of a project (which happened to be a banking marketing campaign) by detecting proximity as well as who was speaking. Rolling this together with the email traffic that went around for the same project, they were able to look at the total communication model and correlations between face-to-face/email traffic and factors such as the quality of the group interactions; the final result is that face-to-face communication communication is better than email. Okay, we really already knew that, but for the gadget geeks, there’s now a way to actually measure it. Apparently, these smart tags can also measure things such as physical gestures, which can have an impact with things such as animating an avatar in an environment like Second Life.

Marshak discussed IBM’s internal community tools, which I’ve heard about from friends of mine who work at IBM. With more than 300,000 employees, IBM has a few internal communication issues, especially around having people with common interests or complementary skills find each other. Their intranet allows people to join groups that are geographic- or interest-based, then use that to harness the community knowledge. His example was about when he upgraded to a new version of Lotus Notes and his Blackberry no longer worked, and he wanted to find out what to do (I resisted the urge to shout out “Buy Microsoft Outlook”); he pinged the internal Blackberry group and was soon in an interactive text chat with others who either had the same problem or who had a solution. The nice thing is that there’s no anonymity: everyone is accountable for their internal communications, and those involved in the communication can rate responses and even report someone else if they are using that communication method improperly. Even their Second Life group requires that you register your real identity in order to join. There’s an ongoing debate about many social networking sites about using your own identity, and I strongly feel that you should use your own identify if you want to engage in a public conversation, since hiding behind a pseudonym often results in completely inappropriate behaviour (I notice that those who oppose this view are almost always the ones engaging in such behaviour).

Abele discussed methods for creating the right environment for group collaboration, which he sees as requiring diversity (in culture, experience, bias, age, geography), a means of gathering input from everyone, and a means of aggregating information. He discussed impediments to collaboration: silos and different cultures, strong egos, messenger killers, pontificators, group think, off topic time wasters, diverse levels of understanding, a range of bias (although he also listed this as part of the diversity that was required), lack of leadership, and poor organization. Many environments actually reward silo behaviour, which manifests in enterprises and academia as information or skills specializations: the better that you get at a particular specialization, the more you get paid; unfortunately, focus on a specialization usually happens to the detriment of other knowledge and skills.

We ended up with audience questions, which started some interesting discussion threads. Marshak said that he doesn’t think that the goal of online communications should be to emulate face-to-face meetings: it’s just different, and those differences can be leveraged.

They also discussed the problems of group-think that can occur both from cultural/gender biases and when corporate organizational structures are allowed to influence how people interact, and how anonymity can be useful in some cases to allow people to ask questions or voice an opinion more freely. However, ultimately, its much more effective to actually know who has which concerns and asks which questions. This moved to a discussion of collaboration (which typically requires that you know who’s who) versus the broader area of group intelligence (which can include anonymous contributions).

Pentland has some interesting comments on how people’s personal goals are no longer fully aligned with that of their employer: when people worked for the same company for life, there was near-perfect alignment, but now, almost everyone has their own career interests that may go in different directions. This can impact people’s willingness to share in a variety of ways, depending on the particular corporate culture: they may be rewarded for bringing forward innovative ideas by being assigned to “cool” projects, or they may be punished for not toeing the company line.

Solis ended up with five keys to success to group intelligence:

  • Be sensitive to what nature of group work you wish to improve/optimize, e.g., many-to-many
  • Leadership commitment
  • Measurement of collaboration and its impacts
  • New tools create new behaviours, so make sure that the tools that you choose are likely to create the outcomes that you want in terms of behaviours
  • Beware obstacles: think back to the list of impediments above and which are likely to occur in your organization

I’ll be running a collaboration group process design session next week for a client, and you can be sure that I’ll be watching for a lot of the things that I’m hearing here today.

Enterprise 2.0: Sam Weber

Last day at the conference — half-day, really — and the first breakout session is with Sam Weber of KnowNow, discussing “RSS: Bridging the Gap Between the People and the Information that Drive Business”. I’ve been looking at ways to bring RSS into the enterprise for quite a while, mostly by nagging the BPM vendors to include it in their products.

Weber starts by saying that they are now completely an RSS company (actually, they also support ATOM), and previously did system-to-system integration using techniques such as REST: essentially, lightweight SOA. It makes perfect sense to me that moving to a focus on RSS is a logical progression from that. They make an RSS reader and a desktop alert tool, and their server is available as a hosted or on-site solution.

In a case study, he discusses a company of 30,000+ employees that has operations in the US and India, with 30 intranets, portals and knowledge bases, and thousands of internal blogs. Their challenge was internal communications across their employee base, and by using RSS for information distribution they were able to deliver consistent communications in a timely manner, without the information being lost in the employee’s email boxes. In other words, as I’m starting to see, RSS is becoming a sort of high priority email replacement, and to avoid clogging up internal email systems with broadcast emails.

He restated his main points from his 6-minute Launch Pad presentation yesterday: email is overused, with over 50% being junk; static portals are useful to less than 20% of users since they require too much action on the part of the user to find the information that they required; search has only about a 50% success rate and also relies on the user to have the skills required to find what they want. In fact, an IDC study showed that the average employee spends 9-10 hours per weeks searching for information, and is only successful half the time (it sounds like a lot more people need a tool like Google Desktop Search, or X1, which I use all the time), and that a 1000-person company wastes $48k per week on the inability to find information.

The solution, according to Weber, is RSS in the enterprise, or what they call live information management. To do this:

  1. Access and monitor information sources, rather than replicating data for the purposes of syndication; this includes monitoring information sources that don’t have RSS feeds.
  2. Automate relevancy, by leveraging this “newly freed content” to allow the system to try to determine what is relevant to a particular user and push them that information.
  3. I blinked, and missed step 3. :) I think that it was more about pushing the information, that is, transform and deliver the data.
  4. Capture user behaviour so as to refine the relevancy algorithms.

With all of this, there needs to be some core system capabilities such as aggregation (to avoid unnecessary duplication), filtering to meet relevancy requirements, data transformation to allow access to sources that don’t have RSS feeds, security, alerts and notifications, and content-based routing of the feeds to those who need them. After that, the information needs to be delivered to the end users, which is done via RSS.

Weber sees the following minimum requirements for a live information management system: monitor all sources inside and outside the enterprise; match content to users based on relevancy; leverage the network effect; deliver information to users as available; provide enterprise security and management; and enable end-user personalization and control. This seems to be a bit redundant with the last two slides, but is a good summary.

His next case study is Wells Fargo, which uses Teradata for collecting information in six major data warehouses; their challenges were around synchronizing metadata and ensuring that data and schema errors were corrected quickly. They’re now using KnowNow (in a customized solution) to monitor parts of the ETL process related to a risk dataset, and push notifications of any problems to the appropriate people via RSS.

Next, he discussed another banking case study (unnamed) where the central organization was sending out more than 80 internal newsletters and alerts each week to all employees; when this bogged down their systems, they moved it to SharePoint, where people actually found that it took more time to find things than in their old Lotus Notes email system. Now, they’re moving to an RSS model for distribution, and find themselves saving $750k per year.

He finished up with options for the enterprise to adopting RSS:

  • Wait, and just use RSS in the systems that offer it today; the big vendors will likely take 2-5 years to bring in RSS formatting.
  • Continue to (over)use email as the main collaboration tool, and bet on portals and search technologies.
  • Implement an enterprise syndication solution, which leverages the information that you have now and allows information to be selectively pushed to people, or allow them to select their own subscriptions.

I have no idea how well KnowNow’s product works, but the concepts that Weber discussed really hit home for me and many of my clients. There’s a Forrester white paper about Enterprise RSS available on the KnowNow site if you want to learn more.

Enterprise 2.0: Hot Videos

No, not that kind of video — these are hot-off-the-press videos of the keynote sessions at the Enterprise 2.0 conference. I stopped by the Altus display at the trade show after the sessions completed today and saw a bit more about the technology behind what’s serving these up. First of all, less than 24 hours after a live session, they have the video up here, complete with a fully searchable transcript, the “talking head”, and the slides, all synchronized. If that weren’t hot enough, note that there’s an RSS feed icon on the page; click on that, copy the URL for the vodcasts, paste it into iTunes, and you’ll be watching the slides with audio on your video iPod.

Enterprise 2.0: Tapscott Panel

Following on directly from his talk, Don Tapscott moderated a panel including Ross Mayfield of SocialText, Kim Polese of SpikeSource (who I saw speak about open source at the CMU West New Software Industry conference in April) and Joe Schueller of Proctor & Gamble.

Mayfield started off with some ideas about the complexity of social networks, and how some vendors attempt to translate that complexity into the software rather than providing simpler tools that encourage emergent behaviour by leaving the complexity with the people part of it. He illustrated the power law of participation, making the distinction between collective intelligence and collaborative intelligence, before moving on to a discussion of what to wiki. First, focussed on people, you can do an internal equivalent to Wikipedia, such as a part of your intranet; the challenge is that there may not be a specific goal associated with this. Second, focus on practice, and create a global glossary or how-tos which provides a practical but non-political reference application. Third, focus on project by creating a forum for project communication and lightweight content management. Fourth, focus on process by using a wiki for handling process exceptions. He finished up by announcing that SocialText launched WikiWidgets today, although I’m not clear at this point what exactly that is.

Polese talked about the enterprise benefits of Web 2.0, but also covered off some of the concerns: cost of the administration of point solutions, security, importing/including data from current information sources, and enterprise content management. She discussed their products, some of which provide testing and support frameworks for using open source in the enterprise, and one which appears to be an enterprise collaboration platform. I’ve seen so many things called “enterprise collaboration platforms” in the last two days, this is starting to be a bit meaningless.

Schueller was up last, discussing how P&G has relabelled their product R&D department to C&D, for Connect & Develop. They see the advantage of collaborating not just to harness technical ideas from all over, but cultural issues that might be relevant to a consumer products company like P&G. He sees this as a key part of business agility, as well as reducing product development costs and just creating better products from better ideas. They’re focussing on their core competencies rather than having to do everything themselves, which is something that’s happened in many industries such as manufacturing, but the idea that you can outsource your ideas is pretty innovative.

It’s like a sauna in the conference room and we’re now at 4:30 on a day that started with 8am sessions; and as we tail off to general questions on the panel, people start to trickle out of the room.

There was a good discussion on the potential for replacing email within the enterprise; Schueller said that he once made a bold statement that they’d just get rid of it, then had to eat those words as he discovered the (current) futility of declaring war on email. I think that there’s great opportunities to reduce email, using things like wikis for collaboration, and RSS feeds for one-way information dissemination (as we saw in the Bank of America presentation this morning), but we’re not going to see a significant decrease in email until more of the boomers retire and more of the MySpace generation gets into corporations to help shift the culture.