Pretzel Logic – Enterprise 2.0

Not the IT case, the Business Case – for sales reps, product managers, marketers, support and service teams considering and debating the virtues of a SaaS enabled business platform.

Obviously it won’t make up for an allegedly ill-conceived product and Google Buzz is getting a lot of heat for being excessively social without consent.

That said, whether it’s a mode of operating your business or a way to sell software, THIS is agility.

DAY 1: Google Buzz is Announced (Feb 9th)

———————————————————————————————————-

DAY 2: Ferocious Customer and Media Backlash (Feb 10th)

———————————————————————————————————-

**DAY 5** Immediate Problems Addressed (Feb 13th)

‘nuff said.

p.s if you want the case study on how Google operational-zed this, Nicholas Carlson on Silicon Alley Insider has the lead story.

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.

At the Enterprise 2.0 conference last month, I met with a few interesting companies that I wasn’t familiar with, prior to the event. I thought I was “plugged in”. Clearly, not enough. The next few posts uncover how some of these companies hope to move the needle on Enterprise 2.0 enablement. First up: Supply Chain Management.

McLean, VA based SIM (Supplier Information Mgmt) provider, Rollstream was one of the more impressive but lesser-known-companies (to me) that I had the chance to meet with. If you read this blog often, you’ll get why I instantly liked their business. RollStream fixes specific problems – inefficiencies in the supply chain via Private Supplier Social Networks. Counting well known companies such as Walgreens, Owens & Minor, Johnson & Johnson and Tesco as customers, their SaaS solution services the partner relationship lifecycle for retailers, manufacturers and distributors. Business activity-focused capabilities cover partner on-boarding, compliance, performance management and dispute resolution.

Founder Nick Parnaby and CEO Kristin Muhlner discussed existing bottlenecks and cliffs in the supply chain mgmt process and how Rollstream hopes to open up the lines of communication, add visibility, and remove unnecessary interaction toll gates enforced by decades old SCM and ERP influenced work models. Also, today’s resource heavy supply chain management interaction models force relationship managers to pick specific partners to deal with. RollStream offers social software to reduce manual intervention during on-boarding and to help organizations more easily identify high performing partners in the network.

Re-casting the supplier relationship via Enterprise 2.0 enablement.

RollStream considers its’ primary value to be in the area of efficient partner management. They know their business of course and it’s early pickings, but to me, one of the biggest opportunities to enterprises using such social computing technology is be able to to pry open the gates that lock out supply chain access to core processes such as product management, R&D, marketing, end customer support, etc. And conversely – giving these business units access to knowledgeable supply chain partners as well. That’s where SIM providers can really help.

Why? First, no one knows the true power, limitations and opportunities for each component of a product better than the very folks who build them. Second, component manufacturing is largely a commodity business.  As a supplier, I need to differentiate myself from competitors who are waiting for me to falter or cut me on price. I need to be a strategic partner to be somewhat indispensible. Social Software can open up the lines of interaction beyond R&D, Procurement and Product Development, allowing suppliers to learn, first hand,  any pain felt by the end customer. Or help marketing really understand the deep competencies of each component of the end product. Or provide new insight to R&D on early technology innovation at the component level. And on and on.

That’s purpose built collaboration (a.k.a business case) with dead clear incentives for suppliers to participate (a.k.a adoption) and play a role in the success of an end product in the market place.

There’s sizable opportunity here, however, solutions such as RollStream may not be for everyone. And I suspect that gaining sustainable adoption across hundreds of suppliers for each customer can sometimes be culturally and programmatically daunting.  I’ve seen one too many partner extranets that eventually turned into ghost towns thanks to re-orgs, shifting priorities and erratic shepherding.

All that said, the use of collaborative software in this context can bring massive, measurable business benefit if its treated as a strategic initiative by enterprises. Pulling in a snippet from an older post….

ZDNet blogger and eternal pragmatist, Dennis Howlett says:

In my argument, breakthrough ROI comes from seeing these technology through the lens of collaboration, which in turn implies process and context. I am mindful that huge amounts of value continue to be locked up in supply chains. AMR quoted a number of $3 trillion in 2005. Has that materially changed? Simply being able to communicate across supply chains in a meaningful manner could do wonders to lubricate those rusty wheels.

Have other ideas about how an Enterprise 2.0 design can improve supply chain processes? Chime in.

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.

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)