on the

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?

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?

• Pay the software vendor 18-22 percent of the original license fee per year.
• Not pay for support (aka, “going naked”).
• Internally support its applications with a cadre of internal resources.  (This is rare but I have seen it.)

The Rise of Independent Support

In recent years, however, a new support option has become particularly popular with many clients of enterprise software vendors: independent support. Companies such as Rimini Street offer organizations running Oracle, PeopleSoft, JD Edwards, Siebel, SAP, and other applications support for about half of what native vendors charge.

You may be asking, “Why would a company offer support on another company’s product?”

As with the answer to most questions in life, the answer is “money.”

This begs the question, “How profitable is support to enterprise software vendors?” While estimates vary, industry notables such as Frank Scavo and Dennis Howlett have speculated that the margins on this type of support are as high as 90 percent.

So, let’s sum up the current state of independent support:

• Rimini Street saw an opportunity and took it.
• It’s obvious that, if unabated, independent support vendors will probably start popping up all over the place. Rimini Street is doing quite well on both price and customer service by most accounts. People are taking notice.
• Vendors are not likely to sit idly by as competitors attack such a highly profitable line of business.

Lawsuits

Oracle in particular has not been happy with the success of Rimini Street. In late January of this year, it finally threw down the gauntlet. Oracle filed a lawsuit against Rimini Street attempting to prevent the latter from supporting the products of the former. After several months of attempted dialogue, Rimini Street fired back this week, countersuing Oracle.

Simon Says

I am no attorney, nor do I play one on TV. From my point of view, Rimini Street’s case has a great deal of merit. Think about it. Software vendors sell their products to clients. This is not a rental or SaaS-based environment in which organizations in effect rent their applications. Clients own vendors’ apps and can do just about whatever they want to them, including customizing them (against vendors’ recommendations) and remaining on older versions. It stands to reason, then, that those organizations can seek support from third parties whether the vendor likes it or not.

Consider the car analogy, one of my favorites. If I buy a BMW, for example, do I have to get it serviced at a BMW dealership or can I go across the street? It’s my car. Now, if I leased a car, then the terms might mandate that I go to the BMW dealership. Again, in this case, I don’t own the car. BMW does.

Irrespective of the outcome of the case, it will shed light on maintenance and support agreements, as both Scavo and Howlett have pointed out. Personally, I don’t see how Oracle can extinguish the independent support flame forever. Rimini Street is doing well because it provides to its clients a compelling product at a significant discount.

Feedback

What do you think? What do your EULAs allow you to do to your organization’s apps?

What’s this about, anyway?

In the first chapter, I set the stage for the rest of the book and hopefully pique your interest. I discuss companies such as Google, Twitter, and Lawson. I also write about the inflection point at which many organizations find themselves, now that Enterprise 2.0 has arrived. Specifically, SaaS, clouds, open source, and other new technologies have become viable.

Also, you will find the table of contents and, perhaps, will understand why the book isn’t exactly short.

For more on the book, click here.

The Next Wave of Technologies – Chapter 1

Against this backdrop, I read an article on NPR with great interest. One thing led to another and I was ultimately able to speak with Laura Schoppe, head of Fuentek, a consultancy that helps organizations transfer technology from one application to new ones.

During this 20 minute podcast, Laura discusses the challenges–and opportunities–associated with being completely virtual, management challenges, software as a service (SaaS), open source, and a host of other interesting topics.

To listen to the podcast, click here or visit iTunes.

The Relational Database

This is an interesting–if long–post on the future of the relational database. I found this line particularly provocative:

Bugs in a properly designed relational database usually don’t lead to data integrity issues; bugs in a key/value database, however, quite easily lead to data integrity issues.

Simon Says

The data integrity issue might be a deal breaker for many organizations thinking of moving to a cloud-based application.

I completely agree that Enterprise 2.0 apps offer amazing promise. Further, the rise of unstructured data may well mean that traditional data models might not be able to handle increased demands–both in terms of quantity of data and data types. I’d argue that data mining and other BI-type activities are all fine and dandy, but will most CIOs embrace applications with completely different data models that can compromise data integrity? Will they do this when data integrity is already a challenge in most organizations? I have my doubts for now.

Social Karma, Part 5

Jim Harris’ latest installment in his series is rife with key social media insights. Jim delineates between on-site and off-site engagement. While most people know the former, the latter involves

• Promote the content of others far more often than you promote your own content
• If you use Twitter, then re-tweet more than you tweet (Note: a future part in this series will discuss Twitter in detail)
• Leave meaningful comments on other blogs—and only include a link to one of your blog posts if it is truly relevant
• Try to respond as promptly to a message left on one of your outposts as you would to a comment left on your blog
• If you blog about conversations that originated on one of your outposts, then properly attribute the others involved

Simon Says

This is the best one in the series so far. Really good stuff. So many people focus on building a presence on their sites but less on building a presence on others. As I point out in the comments, however, there’s only so much time in a day. It’s hard to manage what others are saying about you; you can’t engage in every conversation.

IT Project Myths

In The Myth about a Myth, Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen explores the myth about IT projects being all about the technology. The post itself is short but the comments are really insightful.

Simon Says

Many of the opinions expressed in the comments echo the same sentiment: technology cannot be viewed in isolation. People, data, business processes, politics, and other “non-techie” factors play just as much–if not greater roles–in the success of IT projects. I’d also argue that this holds true for projects of all types: MDM, ERP, CRM, etc.

The Virtual Company

In “For Telecommuters, It’s Not About Going To Work“, Adam Hochberg of NPR tells the story of Fuentek, a completely virtual company. Everyone works at home. Always. All 40 employees.

Simon Says

I am very curious about Fuentek’s use of collaboration software and other wiki-type tools. I don’t see how this company can operate exclusively on email and shared drives. Stay tuned. I’m going to try and do a podcast with someone from Fuentek.

• how they’re being used
• the effects they’re having on people

So, it was with great interest that I stumbled upon three thought-provoking posts yesterday. Trust me…I’m going somewhere with the Vince Vaughn reference.

Will Enterprise 2.0 technologies eliminate middle management?

In, Middle Management: The Importance of Being Michael Scott, Andrew McAfee takes a look at whether the days of the middle manager are numbered.

I had a hard time initially buying McAfee’s early contention that “Enterprise 2.0 overtakes the last vestige of the middle manager’s value — understanding the local culture.” However, later in the piece, he backs off this claim.

Can technology improve others’ view of local markets and, to some extent, obviate the need for some go-betweens? I don’t see why not, especially with collaborative tools and Business Intelligence applications.

Easier said than done, though. A few practical questions:

• Is the data from local markets accurate?
• Is it complete?
• Is it accessible without a bunch of manual manipulation?
• Are organizations and senior people going to trust technology to make decisions traditionally made by people?

I’m not sure that many organizations are ready to axe their middle ranks and replace them with dashboards and BI apps. I suspect that more will get there with the further adoption of Enterprise 2.0 technologies.

How will Enterprise 2.0 affect traditional CRM applications and mindsets?

In Social CRM: Ground zero for Enterprise 2.0 in 2010, Dion Hinchcliffe discusses how traditional CRM is becoming more social. Hinchcliffe writes, “Traditional methods for staying in touch with customers don’t hold a candle to true social engagement.”

Amen.

As he has pointed out in this post and others, a few things need to happen before the true power of Social CRM can be unleashed. For one, organizations need to understand that it’s a two way street and, to that end, they cannot control the entire message. Also, from a technology standpoint, I would think that many “Enterprise 1.0″ apps may not be sufficient for storing, accessing, and analyzing much of the unstructured data generated by the very tools that he describes. Whether that means new apps, new architectures such as SaaS, data marts or data warehouses, or some combination of each is probably a company-specific decision.

Is the Twitter genie out of the bottle?

Ah, one of the big questions these days. In The Twitter Train Has Left the Station, Nick Bilton of the NY Times questions those who doubt Twitter’s effect on traditional medial. Are you “old school” if you refuse to acknowledge that Twitter’s a game changer? Can one opt not to live in a 140 character world? Even if you do, does that mean that you’re ultimately not affected by it?

Simon Says

These are really lofty questions that I can’t possibly answer in a blog post. I will say this. To quote Vince Vaughn’s Ricky Slade in the criminally underrated move Made, “A lot going on. But, of course, there always is, isn’t there? A lot going on.”

The rules seem to be evolving as we speak. Quite frankly, there’s no agreement among talking heads like me about Enterprise 2.0 technologies now, much less where they’re going.

Stay tuned. Enterprise 2.0 (or whatever you want to call it) is going to be one hell of a ride. There’s plenty of room for debate.