Phil Simon » Enterprise 2.0

Enterprise 2.0 Pilots

philsimon — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:02:19 +0000

Andrew McAfee started an interesting discussion recently with his post Drop the Pilot. McAfee makes no bones about the fact that he isn’t a big fan of pilots for Enterprise 2.0 projects. Both in the comments and in subsequent posts by people like Phil Green, many have weighed in with their thoughts on these type of pilot projects. It’s high time for me to chime in.

My Definition of Enterprise 2.0

Before continuing, a definition is in order. I don’t define E2.0 in the same way that McAfee does in his eponymous book or on his blog. McAfee’s definition largely focuses on collaboration and social software in the enterprise. I go a bit further.

In The Next Wave of Technologies, I define Enterprise 2.0 a bit more broadly to include emerging technologies such as SOA, MDM, SaaS, clouds, BI, social networking, open source, and others. From my book’s first chapter:

Simon Says: Context Matters

As for the pros and cons of pilots, I understand both sides of the argument. Consider two extremes:

Company X: A large and overly complex organization with a terrible history of managing IT projects, a dysfunctional culture, non-existent data governance, and other undesirable attributes.
Company Y: A nimble startup with few hurdles, relatively good data, and a successful history of agile software development.

How can one credibly make the claim that Company X should undertake even a small Enterprise 2.0 pilot? Let’s say that Company X wanted to move their apps and data over to the cloud. They would just be adding further complexity to their existing architecture. On the other hand, Company Y can probably jump in with both feet.

These are two extremes and obviously most organizations and IT projects will fall in between them. Industry, type of application, organizational culture, risks, rewards, and other factors need to be considered before undertaking a pilot project. I hate to sound like a traditional consultant, but it depends on many variables. To me, an unequivocal stance makes little sense.

Feedback

What do you think?

Photo from Simon Arramore.

Enterprise 2.0 Pilots is a post from: Phil Simon

Everything Is Miscellaneous by David Weinberger

philsimon — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:56:01 +0000

Serendipity is an interesting thing. I had just hit the “publish” button on my recent post Tell me a Story, a quasi-rant that underscores (at least for me) the need to draw readers in via compelling stories and anecdotes. Needing some time away from the screen, I picked up my copy of Everything is Miscellaneous by David Weinberger. I had heard good things about it and was searching for a good read.

I wasn’t disappointed.

Printing Supplies

Everything Is Miscellaneous starts out with the great story of how Staples stores are arranged. To paraphrase Renee Zellwegger’s character in Jerry MacGuire, this book had me at “Staples.”

Why are printer cartridges and cables in more than one place? Because not everyone walks into the store to buy printer cartridges and cables for precisely the same reason.

Some people already own printers and cartridge refills. They will look for cartridges in a dedicated section and it would never occur to most of them to go to printers.
Some people need to buy new printers; it’s easier for them to stay in that section and get everything they need at once. They don’t want to go to another section of the store. Nor do they want to return to the store and feel stupid for not remembering that printers don’t come with everything needed to print documents from their computer.

And that’s the whole point of the book: different people find similar things in different ways and for vastly different reasons. Everything is rife with great anecdotes and case studies supporting the author’s central thesis. Hamlet, Flickr, and Wikipedia are just a few of the examples manifesting the importance of shared knowledge and more efficient ways of searching the vast streams of information today.

Beautiful Trees and The Third Order of Order

Physical stores like Staples are constrained by where they place items. This is not the case with the web. Weinberger writes:

“In the third order of order, a leaf can hang on many branches, it can hang on different branches for different people, and it can change branches for the same person if she decides to look at the subject differently. It’s not that our knowledge of the world is taking some shape other than a tree or becoming some impossible-to-envision four-dimensional tree. In the third order of order, knowledge doesn’t have a shape. There are just too many useful, powerful, and beautiful ways to make sense of our world.”

From a technology standpoint, this can only happen online with pervasive and accurate tagging and metadata.

Polarizing Topic?

For me, the timing of reading this book (although released in 2007) could not have been better. Lately, I’ve been reading, writing, thinking, talking, and learning a great deal about the semantic web. Everything enhanced my knowledge of the topic, although it’s not formally mentioned until page 190 or so.

Evidently, not everyone shares my viewpoint on the book nor on the importance of the semantic web. I saw the one star reviews for the book on Amazon. To me, it’s evident that some people refuse to see how internet is changing things–and will continue to do so.

Everything Is Miscellaneous is an important book for not understanding what’s going on now, but what’s going to happen with the web as it “goes semantic.” I blew through this book in two days, unable to put it down. Great read.

Everything Is Miscellaneous by David Weinberger is a post from: Phil Simon

How Enterprise 2.0 Will Enable the Semantic Web

philsimon — Mon, 10 May 2010 10:00:57 +0000

As I write this, I am nearly finished with the best and most challenging book that I have read in years. The book is Pull: The Power of the Semantic Web to Transform Your Business by David Siegel. I couldn’t wait to finish it before posting about it.

What is the semantic web?

You may not be familiar with the semantic web. Six months ago, I sure wasn’t. So let’s get the definition out of the way. According to Wikipedia, it is

an evolving development of the World Wide Web in which the meaning (semantics) of information and services on the web is defined, making it possible for the web to “understand” and satisfy the requests of people and machines to use the web content.^[1]^[2] It derives from World Wide Web Consortium director Sir Tim Berners-Lee‘s vision of the Web as a universal medium for data, information, and knowledge exchange.

Some have referred to the semantic web as Web 3.0.

While perhaps a decade away by some estimates, such as a recent report by Pew Research, thousands of people are working right now on making it a reality.

Examples

The industries and examples covered in Siegel’s book run the gamut. Relatively recent ones such as search will be transformed, as will more established ones such as the law. Consider the latter for a moment. With the semantic web and personal data lockers, contracts may be automatically updated when one or more parties changes states. For example, let’s say that I have an agreement to sell oranges to a supermarket in New York City. I decided to take my business to Ohio and, as a result, my contract will tell me if I need to apply for different licenses. (Yes, you read right.) Paperwork will be filed automatically with the appropriate agencies in my new state. Any work required by lawyers will involve actual legal interpretation and analysis, not administrative activities for which I’m being grossly overcharged.

Sound far-fetched? Perhaps. But it’s coming and it’s going to change the web as we know it, not to mention how we work and live.

Siegel also cites the failure of many “knowledge management” systems. Most were, at best, ultimately incomplete for one simple reason: they depended upon typically overworked people entering updates and information into them. That’s hardly a recipe for success.

The solution is the concept of an ontology, something enabled by the semantic web. At a high level, an ontology automates the learning process for systems, allowing for a comprehensive and commonly understood set of assumptions, facts, and descriptions. This obviates the need for anyone to manually update projects and repositories of information. Using ontologies takes care of that for us.

Enterprise 2.0

How does all of this fit in with Enterprise 2.0? What do cloud computing, SaaS, social media, and the like have to do with the semantic web?

Long story short: Enterprise 2.0 technologies will free people and organizations from the shackles of often less-than-valuable activities. Let’s say that an organization begins using a cloud or SaaS provider for its applications, freeing it from the burden of maintaining them. For example, let’s say that application patches and upgrades are now handled by Amazon’s cloud offering. The cost savings allow that organization to hire employees–or redeploy existing ones–to take on tasks essential to the development of the business. The amount of time requird for system maintenance should drop.

Imagine if a company (call it Acme) transformed its applicant tracking systems to embrace the hresume microformat. Rather than relying on simple and often ineffective keyword searches to find applicants who may or may not meet their needs, recruiters hiring managers would be automatically alerted when much more qualified applicants announce their availability to the world. What’s more, that information is automatically and accurately imported into Acme’s systems, allowing for future matches based on changing business needs.

Conclusion

The semantic web is going to be a game changer. We’ll have to go through Web 2.0 to get to Web 3.0 first. Stay tuned.

Of course, that’s just my opinion. What do you think?

How Enterprise 2.0 Will Enable the Semantic Web is a post from: Phil Simon

Interview with Jay Baer on Social Media’s Internal Impact

philsimon — Tue, 04 May 2010 09:30:31 +0000

I recently did an interview with Jay Baer of Convince and Convert in which I discuss the impact of social media and networking within organizations.

Here’s an excerpt:

Jay Baer: There is of course relentless chatter about social media ROI and success metrics. Measuring social media is viable, but not obvious. Is the same true in adoption of new technologies? How should companies evaluate success?

Phil Simon: Great question. The ROI of many Enterprise 2.0 technologies can be relatively easily derived. For example, an organization that would have spent $5M over ten years on a traditional ERP or CRM application (bought from an on-premise vendor) may spend $1M on a SaaS alternative such as Workday or salesforce.com. Alternatively, an organization may use the open source LAMP stack and OpenOffice and save a great deal on software licenses. Note that open source does not mean free, however.

For other technologies, the ROI is a bit tougher to quantify. How does one easily put a value on better data management via MDM? What is the precise ROI of being able to understand your customer base better via business intelligence (BI) applications?

While ROI is important, a discussion of evaluating success and benefits is remiss without considering risks—that’s why there’s a chapter on enterprise risk management. Any new major enterprise technology endeavor introduces risk. However, many times not doing something is actually the bigger risk.

You can read the entire interview by clicking here.

Interview with Jay Baer on Social Media’s Internal Impact is a post from: Phil Simon

Interview with Debbie Hemley on The Next Wave

philsimon — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:30:24 +0000

Debbie Henley of Weber Media recently posted a nice review of The New Wave of Technologies. A few emails later, we decided that an interview made sense. Voila!

Here are a few of the questions posed to me:

Your new book, The New Wave of Technologies, was an impressive undertaking. What motivated you to write the book? How long did it take from concept to publication?
Of the technologies discussed in your new book, is there one in particular that you think is harder for CIO’s and information technology professionals to embrace? Why do you think that is?
You describe the benefits of “reverse mentoring” where younger employees can bring a lot to the table and more senior executives can learn from their expertise. Have you seen an example of where this worked well? What made it successful?

To listen the entire interview, click here.

Interview with Debbie Hemley on The Next Wave is a post from: Phil Simon

My CS TechCast Interview on Disruptive Technologies

philsimon — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:15:43 +0000

I recently did an interview with Eric Beehler in which I discuss disruptive technologies and my new book, The Next Wave of Technologies.

You can watch the video below or go the CS TechCast page. My piece begins around the 13 minute mark and goes for about 12 minutes.

My CS TechCast Interview on Disruptive Technologies is a post from: Phil Simon

Enterprise 2.0 and Collaboration: Come on, HR!

philsimon — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:13:55 +0000

I recently read Jacob Morgan’s excellent post, Does Collaboration Impact Business Performance? Morgan reviews an updated Frost and Sullivan report that assesses impact of collaboration on overall business performance. (To read the entire report, click here.) In a nutshell, collaboration is catching on. Big time.

Reactions

The report has its limitations. As Morgan writes, “keep in mind that this (report) only speaks to tool deployment and says nothing about strategy, results, adoption, or effectiveness.”

Very true. Go back 15 years and think about the number of companies doing ERP, BI, or CRM. That didn’t mean that they were implementing and utilizing these technologies well. In fact, many of these projects were suboptimal, at best. Also, it’s interesting how The Great Recession has spurred adoption of some emerging technologies. Often, organizations and people only do things when essentially forced. This has always been the case.

Note the introduction (at least to me) of the term ROC: Return on Collaboration. This could be both very important and very amorphous, rife with unrealistic or undocumented discussions. It will be interesting to see if ROC catches on.

Perhaps the most shocking revelation from the report is the breakdown of collaborators by function. It is here that I’ll go off on a Dennis Miller-type rant. (He’s always been one of my favorite comedians.)

See Figure 5 from the report:

Simon Says

Now, one report certainly does not reflect every HR function at every organization at every industry. Without debating the methodology, data collection, and analysis of the Frost & Sullivan report, HR’s position relative to other functions appears to be appalling. HR should be at the forefront of collaborative technologies, not trailing the pack. To the extent that HR is still intimately involved in the hiring process for many key positions most organizations, how can HR successfully weed out “posers” if it barely uses such important tools? Look at the other functions in the graph. It’s extremely clear that R&D, Sales, etc. all value collaborative tools. HR just doesn’t get it.

Beyond that, I’d also argue that largely ignoring collaborative tools does a number of other inimical things:

Increases the chances that a new hire is unfamiliar with both specific collaboration tools and, more important, a related mindset.
Decreases the trust that line management has in HR as a function (as well as individual employees).
Reinforces HR’s traditional role as the Personnel department and not a truly important partner.

It’s high time that you get on board the Enterprise 2.0 train, HR.

To quote Mr. Miller, “Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.”

Am I?

Enterprise 2.0 and Collaboration: Come on, HR! is a post from: Phil Simon

Enterprise 2.0: It’s Still All About People

philsimon — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:01:27 +0000

I have spent most of the last year researching emerging trends for The Next Wave of Technologies. While it’s a very big book covering quite a few technologies, for now suffice it say that we have entered an exciting time with regard to IT. It’s obvious to me that, technology-wise, organizations can do pretty much whatever they want. SOA, mobility, open source, agile software development methods, clouds, SaaS, and other concepts allow for so much more flexibility than “Enterprise 1.0″ did.

Against this backdrop, I recently read a few posts that emphasize the continued importance of people in this very dynamic environment.

Cloud Computing

In Fixing IT in the cloud computing era, Dion Hinchcliffe writes extensively about the game-changing nature of cloud computing. Ultimately,

…enterprise architects truly become business architects and business people become their own IT experts. Some of this is already here though much of it is not and there are certainly many issues to be worked out. But the writing is increasingly on the wall that this is the future of IT in the cloud computing era.

Translation: We are overcoming the traditional limitations of enterprise software. This has enormous implications for everyone, especially folks with “less than progressive” views on the normative roles of business end users and IT.

People-Oriented Architecture

In a related post, 2010 Watchlist: People-Oriented Architecture, Phil Wainewright writes:

I’ve used the term people-oriented architecture to make a deliberate contrast with our experience of service-oriented architecture in the past decade. Unlike SOA — which too often sought to remake the way that computers talk to one another without any reference to or consideration of user needs and business results — people-oriented architectures have to be developed collaboratively and iteratively with users and business owners, giving them as much freedom and autonomy as possible to control and manage information and processes to achieve the results they want. It’s an acknowledgment that people are both the commanding providers and the ultimate end consumers of any of the services in a computing architecture.

Put another way, just because we can doesn’t mean that we should, to paraphrase a quote from Jurassic Park. Enterprise 2.0 tools such as SOA, OS, and SaaS are very flexible. Because of this, the role of intelligent business decisions regarding design, architecture, UI, and the like are more important than before, not less.

Simon Says

In Enterprise 2.0, end users will drive how new apps and technologies ultimately work. I truly believe that we’re entering a period in which just about anything is possible on a technology front. The shackles of desktops and laptops, traditional networks, and client-server architecture are being removed. People matter, big time.

What do you think?

Enterprise 2.0: It’s Still All About People is a post from: Phil Simon

Interview with Andrew Filev of Wrike on Enterprise 2.0 Project Management

philsimon — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:00:00 +0000

In the process of networking, I have become friendly with Andrew Filev of Wrike, the leading provider of on-demand project management software for small and midsize companies. Andrew liked the sample that I sent him from The Next Wave of Technologies a few months ago. In this interview, I discuss some of the differences between Enterprise 1.0 and 2.0 projects, collaboration, and other topics.

To read it, click here.

Interview with Andrew Filev of Wrike on Enterprise 2.0 Project Management is a post from: Phil Simon

Social Media: The Tension between Collaboration and Ownership

philsimon — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:30:40 +0000

One of the primary reasons that many technology endeavors fail is that coordination and cooperation among employees and departments is typically lacking. That’s not exactly a news flash. Enterprise 2.0, with its emphasis on collaboration, is supposed to be about minimizing the traditional barriers among departments, breaking down data and communication silos to produce superior results.

At least, that’s the theory.

Who owns social media?

Against this backdrop, I find the challenges posed by one of the most prominent emerging technologies–social media–to be fascinating. I strongly believe that we’re in the very early stages of the adoption and evolution of social media. Many things still need to play out. Perhaps the cardinal question for organizations with regard to social media is, “Who actually owns this stuff?”

I recently read two posts recently that addressed this question.

In Who Owns Social Media? Everyone and No One , Steve Radick writes:

Who should “control” social media within a company is anything but cut and dry. It’s like asking, “What department delivers the greatest value.” The answer apparently depends upon whom you ask. A public relations person will likely say “PR” while a marketer will almost certainly indicate “Marketing.”

Completely agreed. In a related post, Rick Alcantara in Who Should “Control” Social Media Within a Company? writes:

Collaboration across departments, according to several of the respondents, is key to any successful media operation. Jocelyn Canfield, owner of Communication Results, summed it up best. “Organizations are best served by collaboration, not control. PR, Marketing, HR, IR, Corp Communications all have a vested interest in effective social media activities, while IT and graphic design can be an important allies in seamless execution. If everyone feels ownership, everyone benefits.

I have mixed feelings about an exclusively collaborative approach to social media within an organization. Yes, collaboration is essential but, absent a clear owner, how can an organization enforce accountability? Call it the “Who’s minding the store?” problem.

Different departments and employees invariably use social media for different purposes. Consider HR, likely to use social media for recruiting (think LinkedIn) and employee communication. PR, Marketing, and Advertising use it to get the word out or build awareness. Of course, IT needs to be involved for obvious reasons. What’s more, I can’t see too many judicious Legal departments opting to ignore social media.

The same old problem

Collaboration can be amazing. Think open source. To paraphrase Aristotle, the whole can be much greater than the sum of its parts. However, I have seen time and time again people drop the ball because they thought that others were responsible for specific activities. Also, remember that collaboration certainly does not ensure effective utilization or expected results, particularly at very large or geographically dispersed organizations.

With that in mind, I put a few questions to you:

How have you or your organization addressed the tension between collaboration and ownership?
As someone who hates title inflation, I’d hate to see the creation of a “Chief Social Media Officer”, but would that be beneficial?

Social Media: The Tension between Collaboration and Ownership is a post from: Phil Simon