Pretzel Logic – Enterprise 2.0

These were the most visited posts from December 1, 2008 to December 1,2009, per Google Analytics.

I just realized that this blog is only little over a year old. Feels like I’ve been writing for much longer.

A sincere thank you for reading, commenting, referencing and re-tweeting my posts. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate it and how much I’ve learned from the debates and exchanges we’ve had here and on Twitter.

Ok, back to the topic of this post. Top posts here, as follows:

Friendfeed: Inspiration for Sales Intelligence in an Enterprise 2.0 world?

This post took the top spot. It did well on its own but some of the popularity was thanks to a link in the New York Times via ReadWriteWeb.

Summary: How to approach sales performance acceleration using Enterprise 2.0 constructs and account for interaction and data preferences of the typical sales rep.

Enterprise 2.0 Software: Commoditization before Monetization

Summary: A software market perspective on where we’ve been and where the category may end up given the entry of free and open source alternatives. This post could use an update given the entry/imminent entry of Microsoft, Salesforce, TIBCO and SAP – all of whom have chosen to build and not buy.

Why Process Barfs on Social

Summary: Taking the battle to the enemies turf. This is in response to “Enterprise 2.0: What a Crock” by Dennis Howlett, addressing what I hope is a balanced view on where process pundits are wrong about Enterprise 2.0 2.0 and the value of ERP that they closely guard. As well, it shows tangible examples of where social computing has in fact accelerated performance and suggests what we in the E2.0 community can reduce this friction between process and social. Dennis comes around with his balanced opinion as well.

Don’t Confuse Enterprise 2.0 with Social Computing Concepts

Summary: An early post – one of my last on definitions and naming – a topic that I generally stay away from. This post suggests focusing Enterprise 2.0 as a state the enterprise achieves via strategic use of social computing.

Why Unlocking ECM is critical to your Enterprise 2.0 Execution Plan

Summary: How you can leverage existing ECM/CMS investments and Social Computing to drive better outcomes for your marketing investments. Also included was a conversation with Billy Cripe, then Director of ECM at Oracle.

Happy New Year. See you on the other side. I’m pumped about 2010.

Telcos will start looking at picking up affordable SaaS Enterprise 2.0 suites. Why? As mindshare starts to get split between Email and Microblogging/Activity streams, telcos and CSPs that offer white label business email hosting for the SMB market will see these as a natural extension. In the SMB market, standalone solutions are key to allow for simple, cheap distribution directly as well as via small reseller partners that don’t want service and customization headaches. E2.0 SaaS offerings meet those criteria. In addition they offer ready plug ins into other popular SMB apps such as SalesForce for those that want integration.

That could mean a huge buyer market outside of the traditional enterprise players who seem to prefer build as opposed to buy scenarios (Salesforce Chatter, TIBCO Tibbr, SharePoint 2010, SAP Constellation, etc).

If I’m somewhat correct, expect the likes of British Telecom, Singtel and Comcast etc jump in. If I’m very right and my commoditization assessment from last year holds true, we’ll see more players such as RackSpace and XO communications start to pay attention as well.

Agree? Disagree? Fire away below. I’d love to hear other views and bets on which vendors might be juicy candidates if you agree with my swag.

Marc Benioff unveiled what he described as Salesforces’ “biggest breakthrough” – an enterprise social networking platform dubbed Chatter.

Here’s a video interview, courtesy of Dennis Howlett, that provides insight into the drivers, challenges and opportunities for moving to more open constructs in the workplace, as Salesforce sees it:

VentureBeat has a straightforward run down of the proposed feature list. Some other good commentary as well:

Jeremiah Owyang chimes in with what, I sense, is on the minds of many right now:

Trying to grapple with understanding Salesforce’s Chatter, is it something *new* or just a *me too*? #DF09

I’ve seen all of these Chatter features (at least in parts) from Jive, Telligent, Lithium(client), Socialtext(client), Yammer, #DF09

Dennis Howlett’s skeptical:

Salesforce.com may well be the poster child for hip and cool apps that bring the consumer experience to the enterprise but it will likely find CXO’s baulk at the idea of Chatter as a useful addition to their Salesforce.com environment. Only time will tell whether Salesforce.com marketers have judged this correctly.

And Michael Krigsman concludes:

Regardless of where Salesforce decides to take Chatter, the announcement demonstrates that social computing space is reaching a tipping point, which I think is great.

I’m baffled by the name of this service but on the whole, my sense is that this is a huge development for the enterprise software business, as well as a definitive stamp of validation for Enterprise 2.0 constructs and technologies. Assuming of course that Salesforce.com gets this to market as promised.

Context Built In

Chatter is different. Its got the one thing baked in that other applications don’t – context. Built in from the ground up.

Back in February of this year, I wrote about how social computing constructs can make a difference to enterprise sales organizations. Based on our work with sales and marketing organizations at leading enterprise and voice of customer (sales reps) interviews with over 900 sales reps, I laid out a simplistic illustration of what makes a sales rep tick:

• Media watching is not a sport for sales reps. Feed them the good stuff and they’ll consume it.
• Data/Intelligence extraction over collaboration. “Give to Get” doesn’t fly with most sales reps.
• Good reps know exactly which 8.75 data types help them bust quotas. No more, no less.
• In spite of the above, don’t expect them to dig for it. They’d rather use the time to cold call a lead.
• Sales reps often ignore a lot of what marketing might offer or recommend.
• They don’t personalize portals & intranets.
• They rather search than browse; they want answers, not search results. (ok, who doesn’t!)
• CRM apps often morph into reporting mechanisms that sales reps are mandated to use.
• Pre-sales engineers (in the case of High Tech) often do most of labor intensive tasks in the sales cycle (assembling proposal components, finding SMEs and references, etc).

Super impose these characteristics on the features presented in the Chatter demo and I say we have a solid start. Chatter’s got context and intent built in for the sales organization given its close out of the box linkages to Salesforce.com’s flagship CRM application. Next, the activity stream/ feed metaphor was made for the sales rep: Why? Given how they prefer to work, it 1) enables them to pluck important nuggets out of the stream that support the sales process and 2) lets the best minds wrap around a task at hand (RFP, prospect inquiry, customer support issue and the like). It won’t all just happen out of the box but the application has the potential to make it a hell of a lot easier.

Process + Social

Last week I wrote a post called “Why Process Barfs on Social”. My central point was that unless we see a social + process in context, Enterprise 2.0 won’t realize its full potential. Whilst tools certainly won’t provide the solution alone, Chatter has the capability of being the first integrated showcase where social concepts are unleashed to enrichen discrete processes (in this case, closing and keeping customers) towards established performance goals.

There’s no question that some of the most important data that sales reps need reside outside of the confines of traditional CEM and sales applications. They sit in home grown contract registries, support agreement databases, 3rd part news and social media platforms, ERP systems and very important – the minds of known and unknown colleagues. Chatters’ platform capabilities enable access to these data sources and people. This, along with the ability to collaborate around an object ( a lead, a competitor, a customer, a topic) brings process + social closer than ever before.

One Part Offence, Two Parts Defense

Despite the very convincing assault on Microsoft SharePoint by Marc, my sense is that this is more defense than offence on Salesforces.com’s part. Taking on the installed base of SharePoint may be a longer term goal but for now SalesForce needs to make its existing applications useful to sales reps and move away from being a glorified reporting application for operational bean counters or (as Scott Schnaars suggests), a contact management system. Not to mention the rising interest in so-called “social CRM” services. Chatter gives reps a reason to stay within Salesforce.com a little while longer and amps up the sustained utility of the service.

Distribution

Whilst this is validation around the concept of social computing in the enterprise and pureplay vendors will see a rising tide effect, there’s a downside as well. Its tempting to say that pureplay vendors had these capabilities for a while and can hold their own. The reality is that feature shoot outs play but one role in enterprise purchase decision making. Salesforce brings its powerful distribution channel, out of the box process integration, and a now social marketplace in AppExchange – together providing a very compelling reason for enterprises to consider this as a company-wide social networking platform.

Customer Centricity

This, in my opinion, was the biggest lost opportunity in the launch of this service.

One of the reasons for Bloomberg LPs ungodly success is that every single employee’s bonus is tied to new sales and renewals. IT, Product, Marketing, Support, everyone. That means everyone prioritizes their work around revenue. That’s extremely difficult to do especially since only a chosen few at most companies have any control or even insight into the sales process. Now, with Chatter being seeded in the nucleus of managing customer relationships in the enterprise (i.e. CRM), there’s the opportunity, for the first time, to provide a universal lens into the process of courting, converting and servicing a customer. Everyone can see the sales and support process live and chime in with expertise, helping cradle the process to revenue and customer satisfaction. The big value proposition of the enterprise social web is improved customer centricity and there’s a unique opportunity for Chatter to make this a reality. I wish Salesforce had seized this opportunity to present a model that can transform how organizations and their partner ecosystems can be structured around the customer.

$50 bucks a user per month? Ouch!

Yes it’s a lot. But what strikes me as odd was that Salesforce did not offer some sort of basic/read-only access to Chatter for non Salesforce users at a given customer. What better way for others to see where their input is crucial to an ongoing project, RFP, discussion etc and make the case for purchasing that additional seat? That’s free marketing and a straight forward conversion strategy for Salesforce to move laterally, out side of sales and marketing. It’s still early so I won’t be surprised to see something similar to this.

Closing Thoughts

All up, this is excellent news for the Enterprise 2.0 space and I’m thrilled that a process facilitator such as Salesforce has dipped its toes in the social computing arena. Its about time Enterprise 2.0 grew up and started talking business. And Salesforce is one of the few companies that can lead that charge. It’s a separate post but pure plays will gain more than they will loose with increased awareness of the business association of social computing concepts. Good for the entire ecosystem.

For a detailed look at Chatter, see Marc Benioffs (very long) interview at TechCrunch’s Realtime Crunch Up Event.

I’m bullish.

Update: Great analysis on the infrastructure view point by Esteban Kolsky.

ZDNet Blogger and eternal pragmatist, Dennis Howlett is at it again. As a follow up to his original “Enterprise 2.0: What a Crock” post and an attempt by a panel at the Enterprise 2.0 conference to respond to his contention, he validates his original argument, saying:

What I find staggering is that despite the panel’s general acknowledgment that ‘it is early days’ they have no clear answers for solving the problems that Enterprise 2.0 evokes. If this is the best that industry can put forward then forget it. There are far bigger problems to solve like correctly managing the workforce in times of economic crisis, smoothing out lumpy supply chains, beating down on data center costs or just getting ERP to deliver the benefits that were intended and which have consumed billions of IT spend dollars.

Given how the discussion on Enterprise 2.0 plays out on the blogosphere as well as at conferences, you really can’t objectively argue with this statement. In fact, Ill go further: The ‘Its the early days’ argument just doesn’t stand up. No different from the plethora of consumer services that we all use (Twitter et al), first impressions are lasting impressions in the enterprise setting as well. As participants, we make up our minds very early about the usefulness of a program, technology or service. And so if intent, incentive, context and usability are not hard coded into the effort from the get go, its never going to have the required street credibility, no matter how much time and money you throw at adoption.

And if you can’t shake fact that Dennis often sports an ERP-colored lens, a fresh eye provided by Venturebeat reporter Anthony Ha also results in a similar conclusion.

The Colossal Enterprise 2.0 Short Sell

The problem is that, in the context of E2.0, there’s little discussion around performance objectives where social computing constructs and technologies can move the needle on discrete but large scale business solutions. Equally bad is that there’s little thought and discussion around the optimal solutions architecture and combination of process + social that can solve large scale problems that keeps the c-suite awake at night. Instead, the discussion is dominated by suites vs. platform debates, more technical gobbldygook (to an executive at least) about feature superiority, endless back-to-the-drawing-board definition debates, and post deployment adoption difficulties that in actuality might not have been so bad had the requisite execution planning been considered in the first place. I’m not pointing fingers, by the way. I also engage in some of these when prodded.

In actuality, Dennis’ assessment is not entirely correct. It’s just that the Enterprise 2.0 airwaves (and conferences) are subsumed by weak business benefit alignment exacerbated by tactical discussion around ‘strategy’ (NOT) that centers around suite implementation, why no one stuck around after launch, and how email sucks.  All that achieves is driving the promise of social computing constructs further and further down the food chain – to a place that few executives really care to hang out at. And the process performance practitioners and pundits have a field day with all of this.

The Beef is, In Fact, Here

My colleague Oliver Marks (who also takes on this issue) and I co-chaired the strategy and execution planning track (review by Ben Kepes | CloudAve) at the Enterprise 2.0 conference where we ran a 3 hour workshop on how to get executives to understand the business value of social computing in the context of performance goals that keep them up at night. Following that we ran sessions that addressed delivering tangible value in the context of known functions and processes in the enterprise: purpose driven collaboration, reducing customer support costs via social concepts and improving product innovation via social concepts. No tools, no features and frankly no adoption. Just performance acceleration via strategic process and performance alignment – topics that are central to the consulting work that Oliver and I are involved in and frankly those that need to dominate the discussion around Enterprise 2.0 (detailed below).

How would the skeptics respond if they heard GetSatisfaction CEO Wendy Lea explain how Nike centrally manages its offsite community discussions for a whopping $8,000/ year? Or Altimeter Group Partner, R Ray Wang’s estimate that social computing concepts, when injected into process, actually reduces costs 2 to 4 X times over those very ERP-esq call center/CRM technology driven programs that Dennis and other skeptics are all too familiar with? Contrast that with the fact that traditional CRM systems on their own are often nothing more than glorified reporting systems that sales reps are mandated to use, in exchange for their commission check. Building on Rays assertion, now, with the strategic use of social computing concepts and technologies in context, these new approaches help nip customer support problems early and at a significantly reduced cost. As important, they inject qualified leads into traditional CRM systems finally giving them a real performance acceleration purpose, beyond bean counting by a Sales Operations Manager. That’s process + social, exponentially improving performance.

Want more? Take the case of how an extremely conservative organization such as Chevron  significant improved safety risk and improved performance:

• Chevron used social computing (in this case to generate ideas) constructs and technologies to find new applications for patented processes created at one of its oil refineries. These processes, powered by ERP inventory management as well as other systems that manage chemical mixes, fume levels and repair management were limited to one process and one physical location. Idea management via social software enabled Chevron to find and select 6 out of 115 re-application candidates globally where existing patents were reused or extended as new patents, to also improve similar processes on aboard ships, offshore refineries, energy exploration efforts and other “dangerous monitoring environments”. Federated risk management programs and more patents – thanks to the power of social computing that brought the right minds together to ideate and collaborate.
• Second, reducing safety risks at residential and commercial communities that sit above oil pipelines is obviously critical to Chevron. They used social computing constructs  to get its IT department, ERP inventory management provider and GPS system vendor to generate ideas and to collaborate on a new approach to removing process breaks and paper based processes that impede timely community notification when pipelines break. Social computing was central to this effort to speed up communication to folks that lived close to pipelines and to reduce the time from problem notification to repair.

In all of these cases, data, and intelligence normally buried in closed process centric activity and systems were pushed into people centric social realms for improvement, only then to be put back into process systems in their newer highly optimized forms. If these are not clear examples of how process and so called enterprise 2.0 social concepts came to together to accelerate performance, I don’t know what is. And I’m willing to bet that if the naysayers saw more of these examples, they would pontificate based on a different set of facts.

I suspect this is what SAP EVP, Zia Yusuf might be thinking when he tweeted

@dahowlett blog and wikis will not drive value alone, I think the trick here is to connect "crowd insight" directly into specific bizprocess

…and what ex-SAPer and author of Driven to Perform, Nenshad Bardolliwala credibly elaborates on in his architectural illustration of where social computing can co-exist traditional process based activity.

Whilst we are on the subject of SAP, think those ERP laden processes are all that?  Lets see how Tony Hsieh feels about not using community constructs during, say, the order to cash (and refund) process to provide the same insane level of customer service that Zappos offers during the pre sales process. Sure, you need to have compliance and governance covered, but social constructs injected strategically drastically improves the quality of output in a world where customer centricity is inevitability becoming front and center.

But truthfully, in the defense of the Process advocates, what else can they benchmark against? Certainly not the prevalent E2.0 discourse that’s focused on unseating Knowledge Management, Email, Intranets and Portals to drive nebulous benefits such as productivity, time savings, and worse, the rudderless catch all – workplace transformation.  All in all, these older technologies and programs have shown little to no large scale performance acceleration and the C-Suite is acutely aware of that. If for nothing else, at least SAP helps to keep the SEC, Justice System, FDA and IRS off your back.

The Moment of Truth

Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of real work required in the area of adoption that dominates the airwaves and I don’t mean to discount these efforts of some very hard working folks. And even ERP, CRM etc have their own share of usage problems, giving birth to a sizable industry that just focuses just on ERP/CRM training to drive proper adoption. The difference is that intent and the business case for using these technologies are dead clear. Something that’s just missing in the Enterprise 2.0 discussion and stated promise.

The moment of truth is about to hit this category over the next 12 months where executives are going to ask the hard questions about the applicability of these constructs and technologies to performance acceleration and to alignment with discrete business goals. Anything but a succinct answer that involves the right balance social + process and the estimated switching cost will result in E2.0 being tragically (and wrongly) regarded as yet another example of Micky Mouse technology that belongs on a server under someone desk, if at all.

The choice is clear.

Update: More from Dennis on ZDNet commenting on this and some other very good posts on this topic.

I just saw something go by by my tweet stream that brought back some old memories (thanks @rpolom) – the 2009 Gartner report on the horizontal Portal Vendor landscape. Here’s the Magic Quadrant:

Around 2001, I led a strategy and execution planning engagement for a then F500 Hi tech firm looking to recast how its 9,000 strong global sales force collaborated with the rest of the ~40,000 person organization. My teams charter was to identify breaks in the interaction process with sales engineers, global field marketing and sales operation and devise a plan to improve the ‘contact to revenue cycle’ for sales reps via new collaborative constructs and sales intelligence access.

As part of this we were also on the hook to put an execution and operational plan in place. That ended up including a technology solution from the portal marketplace – the sizzling hot technology that promised to provide a single homepage to data and information from scores of traditional ERP and custom built systems. My team looked at 27 vendors. Yes 27!  Here’s the list from one of the drafts that I dug up:

Thats a snapshot of where this Portal Market started. And look whats left based on the Gartner MQ above.

On to the Enterprise social software landscape:

Dion Hinchcliffe’s lays out the market in this vendor landscape diagram in this post “Assessing the Enterprise 2.0 marketplace” below thats a prettier E2.0 software equivalent to my table above.

The Enterprise 2.0 solution landscape may well track the portal market evolution. To be fair, Enterprise 2.0 software does a lot more than portals but there’s some parallels to be drawn. Portals brought it all together with personalization around data and unified system access. But no cognizance of context or behavioral design for each participant type. A good chunk of Enterprise 2.0 software also promises people interaction and activity stream access as a better option to static portals. But for the most part, out of the box, it’s still general purpose ‘build it and they will come’.

That said, there’s a difference this time around. I’m seeing more and more instances of process centric business challenges where social software can help tremendously. As a consulting practice, our focus is enterprise performance acceleration and so that’s validation. The good news is that customers seem to be pushing social software/ E2.0 technology vendors to fix business processes relatively early in the lifecycle of this technology category compared to portals. That’s great news for both technology and services vendors that have a solution set and credible experience to help customers respond to real business problems. In other words, sensible applicable of social constructs as opposed to social as the cure all.

As for the E2.0 upstart vendor and services marketplace, I expect that a handful of vendors will do very well based on a “replace your intranet” value proposition. Even out of the box, the social software stack is far better than static intranets but its becoming a commoditized business. The rest better start focusing on line of business performance if they don’t want to get left by the wayside. In fact, as I’ve stated earlier, I think the market is far larger for that anyway.

Using Dion’s diagram as the E2.0 equivalent of my portal landscape cut out, any bets on what which names we should expect to see on the Garter MQ for Social Software in 2-3 years?

A quick shout out to my friends Oliver Marks, Dennis Howlett and Vinnie Mirchandani, and to R Ray Wang and Frank Scavo on the launch Enterprise Advocates.

This signals a new trend in the consulting and analyst landscape, characterized by loose federations of both independent consultants and firms that collaborate as advocates for the end customer.

Dennis talks about the need for agile advisory:

One of the main reasons we formed this group is because we believe there is a need for agile, flexible teams capable of rapidly responding to client needs. The big analyst/consulting firms struggle with that. We also see the problems companies face as global albeit with local nuance. That means as opportunities emerge, some or all of us will be involved with projects, drafting in appropriate specialists on an as needed basis from our extensive network of contacts. Our offer is based on solid practical help backed by more than 100 years combined experience with companies both large and small.

The money quote from Vinnie for the need for customer advocacy:

We think the time is right. Technology vendors spend 20 to 50% of their revenues in sales and marketing. Give or take that is a trillion dollars a year. The buyer’s voice is often drowned in that roar.

And Oliver, who like me, comes from the social computing and collaborative design view point, says:

My involvement in enterprise advocates is also two fold: to help the buyer get a good deal on technology which will help them be more efficient and make more money, and to address the increasing friction between the office and infrastructure areas, and help design greater interoperability for buyers.

I’m actually surprised that we haven’t see a federation like this pop up earlier. That said, I can’t think of a more experienced team of individuals in the Enterprise arena that can credibly have the customers back.

The technology industry is seeing tectonic shifts right now with the advent of Cloud Computing alternatives, a heightened awareness of maintenance costs for on-premise software and the (somewhat yet to be realized) promise of social computing constructs at a large scale. And so its more important than ever to have a customer advocacy group that can navigate vendor marketing hoopla, putting the customers needs and interests at the nucleus of the discussion.

To kick things off, the group will host its’ first webinar:

The inaugural one-hour webinar is planned for 22nd October ( 9:00 am PDT/ 12:00 pm EDT/ 4:00 pm GMT / and 5:00 pm CET) and will focus on helping SAP customers understand what they are dealing with, how maintenance can be managed, what alternatives are available, how to build a long-term contract negotiations strategy aligned with the organization’s applications strategy, and why buyers must act now. Time is set aside for Q&A and, should the session run out of time before all questions are answered, then full answers will be offered at the website following the webinar. Interested individuals may register at the following link: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/435331515.

Best wishes to all of the folks in the Enterprise Advocates. The official site, here. And, on Twitter.

If you’re a large organization using enterprise content management systems (ECM), chances are that its powering images, documents and records management, and web content. These systems enforce roles, workflows, access control and versioning to enable the creation, management and dissemination of media assets.

What this means is that from the very beginning of a given business activity, a few people control the creation of information that employees, customers, partners and suppliers rely on to move your business forward. Like it or not, this puts the responsibility/power to influence business performance in the hands of a few, with little input from other unknown experts, or consumers of this data. You only find out how effective the content turned out to be once its consumed (and long after you can optimize).

I’ve spent a decade working with business units at large organizations designing global communication and collaborative initiatives in the areas of sales and marketing, employee comms, channel collaboration and brand management. But I wanted an outside perspective. So i reached out to Billy Cripe, co-author of Reshaping your Business with Web 2.0 and Director of Product Management in Oracle’s Enterprise Content Management Group. An Enterprise 2.0 advocate himself, Billy brings a unique perspective given that he focuses on understanding how social computing blends with existing enterprise content management – something that many medium to large organizations are going to have to deal with if they buy into the design and promise of Enterprise 2.0. All control is not good but all social is certainly not always optimal. That’s an important part of any E2.0 execution plan.

Achieving a state of Enterprise 2.0 requires surgically moving the nucleus of a business activity from process driven systems to people centric environments. I asked Billy to identify 3 inefficiencies in traditional content management processes that impede business performance, where social computing can help:

Wrapping the best brains around the problem

Billy and I also talked about how Enterprise 2.0 enabled organizations will blend social computing and structured process by turning siloed unstructured content into ‘social objects’ early on in the process. For instance, instead of using traditional access control-heavy CMS workflow when working on early drafts of marketing collateral for a product launch, or market projections for a new line of business, a wiki – style environment opens up discussions around early drafts to more constituencies before the owner moves this into formal production. Social networking features enable you do discover ‘experts’ and invite them to contribute. Micro blogging concepts make your business activity noticeable across the organization so others can be aware of where they can help. In addition to refining the end product, think of the risk you can mitigate by having the right voices pipe in, early on. Examples of early collaboration include:

• Early feedback on product specs from loyal customers before you lock feature sets.
• Deeper understanding of product strengths from supply chain partners that intimately know the power of each component in your product.
• Feedback from channel partners that might be critical to meaningful distribution and adoption, post launch.
• Getting previously unknown subject matter experts in distributed organizations to provide insight on an RFP response.
• Leveraging the signals: A contact center rep gets to peer into community content or find experts to support sometimes bland one-dimensional answers coming from the knowledge base or ERP system.

When you layer in social computing concepts at the early stages of content creation, you have the ability to encourage such uses of raw ingredients (or social objects). These social objects, previously hidden in an access controlled CMS environment are now unlocked via social computing concepts and tools. The beauty is that they can now be work in progress for some, finished product for others that participate or discover it, or can be interpreted in totally different ways, never intended by the original participants.

Does Your Content have legs?

Analytics gained via social computing architectures fold in accountability and measurement at the social object level as well as the meta-data (rankings, ratings, tags etc) on each content type. This enables you to learn if/how content is being used to truly accelerate business performance. What types of content are highly rated or most re-used, what business activity was most impacted by specific social objects? The business of creating and managing content (and budget) is often a “black hole” at large organizations. Social computing analytics let you measure the value of each building block (and the programs that create them) so you know which horse(s) to back, going forward.

Important Execution Elements to Consider

In no way do I want to imply that just throwing in a social suite will make this work model a reality. It won’t. A couple of important considerations:

• This is not about a more effective content management process. Its got to do with strategically using social concepts to change how your organization collectively creates, vets and leverages content.
• Design processes and select applications that can accelerate business activity. If you start with “I need a new content management strategy”, you’re likely off to a wrong start. If your thinking about say how to improve sales close rates by better alignment between sales and marketing content, you’re approaching the problem correctly.
• Make participation available but surgically enforce controls where needed.
• To ensure adoption and mitigate risk, check whether you’ve answered the “what’s in it for me” question before you expect partners, employees, organizational departments or customers to jump in and play.
• Vendors may call their offerings platforms, solutions, whatever. At the end of the day these are tools. Lead with the inherent business performance goals that should govern any potential Enterprise 2.0 organizational design and work backwards to figure out the right platform or best of breed solutions architecture.

Vendors Moves

ECM technology offerings are going to morph at a phenomenal rate over the next 6 months. Some will bring social computing to ECM. Others will wrap Social Computing and ECM around ERP. Oracle is making very commendable moves by fusing its ECM, Portal and Social Offerings. OpenText is also going back to the drawing board (interview by Cheryl McKinnon) on what content management means in the socially connected enterprise. And Acquia is bringing an industrial strength offering to businesses, based on its hugely successful Drupal open source CMS offering. More on OpenText and Acquia in subsequent posts.

I’d like to close with a special thanks to Billy for taking the time to chat.  He was very careful to disclaim that his lens might be slanted towards incumbent content management processes.  In fact that’s exactly what I was looking for, so we could provide value to thousands of large organizations that have heavily invested in some formal content management process.

Outside of security (something the CIO cares deeply about), I can’t tell you how many times business execs I deal with say that are terrified at the prospects of their SaaS based intranets or extranets disappearing during a critical time.

For all the excellent analysis out there about Enterprise 2.0 adoption strategy, reliability is extremely critical to piercing the culture barrier in any sustainable way. Any well thought out adoption plan will fizzle out with a broken promise on system uptime. Folks will go right back to their old ways.  And the naysayers will throw the “i told you so” argument in your face to derail the initiative.

SaaS is extremely promising and I’m a big proponent. And this is not about Yammer who seem to be communicating well about this issue with customers on Twitter.

However, balancing the mission critical nature of your intended business activities with optimal software delivery is critical. SLAs really don’t mean much in the case of mission critical systems. Really, what’s the point of getting a few months of free service in return if it means 1000’s of productive hours lost or worse, lost new business or unhappy customers. And for many smaller, growing businesses, a lawsuit is hardly worth it.

Google announced its intent to get into the Operating System business with the upcoming release of Google Chrome in 2010. You can get a sense of all the premature gushing on Techmeme – journalists and bloggers one upping each other on when (not if) Google will each Microsoft’s lunch. The blog title award goes to TechCrunch: “Google Drops a Nuclear Bomb on Microsoft…”

Before we get into Enterprise 2.0 ramifications, lets get Enterprise 1.0 out of the way….

Chrome OS’ allegiance to the Netbook as a distribution platform is snooze-provoking in the context of the enterprise.  As Dennis Howlett on ZDnet opines:

Even then and despite the proclivity among geeks for all things OS, when ChromeOS does emerge it will be a v1.0. No enterprise buyer I know will go within a country mile of committing its users’ kit to something at that level of maturity. Can you imagine the chaotic disruption this would cause in IT departments used to burning images and distributing a standard desktop?

Beyond this, broadband proliferation is the single biggest issue even if the IT department does come around to the idea of cloud based storage. Stacy Higginbotham at GigaOM puts forth a realistic question:

Can Google convince carriers, which aren’t big fans of the search giant, that selling netbooks with Chrome OS is the way to go? Most analysts expect carriers to become a huge distribution channel for netbooks.

If your data is in the cloud, accessibility needs to be 100%. And Netbook implies, pick up and go. That means rely on tethering your phone or ponying up the cash for wireless cards. For everyone. That’s already expensive for Sales reps, let the whole organization.

David Coursey of Linux World provides some great we’ve-seen-this-movie-before analysis by illustrating some painful lessons learned from when Linux tried to take on MS in the Netbook wars, and lost.

The Netbook is really Google’s attempt to find new advertising revenue sources and users, allowing it to mine all consumer data that it will store in its own cloud. Also, as Sridhar from Zoho opines, its a great value proposition for places like India where PC penetration is ~10%.

On to Enterprise 2.0

Assume I’m totally wrong and Netbooks are all the rage in the enterprise. Here’s one scenario that plays out:

Google packages up a Netbook  with ChromeOS, Google Apps, Umbrella Analytics, Google Gears and and Wave-enabled Enterprise 2.0 capabilities. The full enchilada along with a developer platform to enable customization for specific use cases in the enterprise. Now that’s a software distribution model that in theory can give SharePoint bundled with Exchange, a serious run for its money. And that also speeds up commoditization of Enterprise 2.0 solutions.

But its all very unlikely for the foreseeable future.

First, given that ChromeOS doesn’t come out until 2010 and that IT departments are not going to throw out existing MS software and their laptops the next morning, Microsoft has plenty of time to counter.

Second, the true promise of an Enterprise 2.0 design will not materialize if your social software is not cognizant of /doesn’t enrichen what’s going on in your ERP, CRM and ECM-enabled business activities. So unless you’re comfortable with the farfetched assumption that all your other non Google powered business applications will also live in the cloud reliably, and will magically talk to each other, this is a non-starter. Oliver Marks has some other excellent comments on the impractically of this working out in the enterprise that are worth a read.

In some ways, Microsoft commanding the OS over Google may just be a gift for Enterprise 2.0 upstarts.  As theoretical as the scenarios is that I’ve laid out above, it’s a pretty compelling blueprint for Google to work towards.

However, lets face it, a comprehensive silo breaking Enterprise 2.0 design is years away for most organizations, let alone one that’s powered by a 100% cloud solution. So in the meantime, Microsoft’s platform offering leaves room for others to provide more visually appealing, context aware social overlays to SharePoint. Something that Enterprise 2.0 providers such as Newsgator and Telligent have become very good at building upon. Even non .NET solutions such as SocialText have strong hooks into SharePoint.

Any more discussion on this topic right now is like asking a jury to call a case before hearing the defendant. Lets see what the complete picture looks like when Microsoft shows its’ hand next week.

This is the second of a series of posts on my take aways from the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston.

My customers and I debate the applicability of SaaS to their operation on a regular basis, using garden variety criteria such as process alignment, cost, ease, integration, security and the like.

A new dynamic hit me after chatting with multiple SaaS providers at the E2.0 conference:

A good number of E2.0 SaaS solutions unfortunately had little to do with the customer. The decision to go SaaS was largely an inward convenience.

The SaaS Foundation

During 2007-2008, many Venture Capitalists bet on the model that Salesforce has proven out, hoping to emulate it in the E2.0 category. Compared to traditional on premise software, SaaS organizations proposed a reduced operational capital outlay thanks to write once, publish everywhere code, low or no-touch sales via online purchase & provisioning, and flattened marketing costs via free-mium models & platform ecosystem distribution (e.g. AppExchange). And so we see this foundation in many E2.0 providers today.

Enterprise 2.0 Market Reality

Now, superimpose this SaaS operational design on some of the current realities in the Enterprise 2.0 space. Note: I’m talking about larger customers.

• Not one vendor with whom I spoke, on-premise or SaaS, was ready to declare wide scale adoption. It’s tough stuff. And it’s clear that it requires expensive headcount to effectively drive awareness and usage, post deployment.
• Annuity pricing seems to be most palatable for the buyer whether its SaaS or On Premise. So if adoption/applicability starts to wane, don’t expect a check next year.
• Integration is not optional. Whether light weight directory integration or deep application level integration, it’s become the price of entry.
• Integration is not enough. You’re still risking contributing to a silo’d organization and that runs counter to the principles of collaborative environments that E2.0 promises. Unless greenfield, what’s needed is deep association with incumbent ERP /ECM driven activity.
• The most striking lesson from last week’s shocking demise of on-demand BI vendor LucidEra (Hat Tip: Dave Rosenberg | cnet) is this: Customers do not necessarily want simple solutions – in fact, they often need ridiculously complex, often personalized systems to effectively drive business acceleration. What they’re really asking for is simplified experiences that mask them from behind-the-scenes voodoo. Many SaaS vendors seemed to confuse these two distinct requirements.

Salesforce had 2 significantly distinct characteristics going for it that led to critical mass. An individual could drop a credit card and start using the service. Enterprise 2.0 on the other hand is predicated on network effects. Second, Salesforce is used as a standalone application in many use cases. But true Enterprise 2.0 enabled transformation without cognizance of other applications? Not very effective for many organizations.

Now, is all of this pertinent only to E2.0 SaaS providers? Nope. On premise providers need to deal with the realities stated above as well. However, from a organizational design perspective, SaaS only offerings are financed and built to do business with very few marketing, consulting and sales resources and with a one size fits all offering.

On-premise solutions on the other hand are funded like old school enterprise software companies and their financials account for head count to be successful. And so, whist they are also facing tight budgets in this economic climate, they may still be better suited to offer internal integration and adoption services. Or a financially attractive VAR/SI offering.

Product Development Motivators

I couldn’t shake off the nagging feeling that many newer SaaS vendors were more excited about the ease of SaaS being a way to reduce their own acid reflux problems. Sure, agile, iterative development is good for the customer as well. But these benefits need to be weighed against the goal of creating silo busting, well adopted, real time enterprises for customers. And that requires labor intensive adoption and clever integration assistance.

Many SaaS vendors (focused on all market segments) also seemed to be clearly seduced by the ease of integration with other cloud solutions, void of relevance to the target customers incumbent technology footprint. Google Apps before SharePoint. Wikis over ECM. More Salesforce, little to no SAP/Oracle. Again, convenient for the provider, not always relevant to a lot of customers.

Closing Thoughts

I’m in no way asserting that SaaS is a bad idea across the board. I absolutely believe that there is a model somewhere out there for cloud and SaaS offerings for large customers, despite recent high profile hiccups from Amazon and Google.

However, SaaS is not an optimal solution for every business problem and every customer. Providers need to look in the mirror and be brutally honest with themselves about the motivations around their SaaS strategy and its relevancy to the customer. I’ve already heard of instances of business changing hands between E2.0 vendors at this early stage in the game, for these very reasons.

Having had led over scores of sizable strategy and technology sourcing engagements, there’s no debate in my mind about one thing: In a bake off, a vendors true motivations become very transparent to smart executives involved in the selection process. Once you get past emergent Enterprise 2.0 embracing and it’s time for the big leagues, this stuff matters.

Bernard Lunn at ReadWriteWeb writes an excellent post (link below), asking “Why Enterprises Don’t like SaaS”. I think it’s because subconsciously Enterprises sense that SaaS purveyors are saving all the fun for themselves.  -)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Who uses cloud computing? Startups do, VCs don’t (venturebeat.com)