Collaborative Thinking

Reality Check 2.0

I love the title "Reality Check 2.0" but all credit should go to Susan (citation link below).

This recession/depression is poised to eclipse any downturn we’ve seen in our lifetimes. As I canvas the Enterprise 2.0 landscape, I find myself wondering: what is our killer economic crisis app/movement? Twitter? Facebook? Will we save the U.S auto industry by social networking?

Really?

I can assure you, there will be no Federal bail outs for 2.0 startups. Some startups will stretch their life expectancy with VC funds, but at the end of the day, it’s show time. How will you help your customers and future customers grow or at least sustain their business through this economic downturn?

The Enterprise 2.0 Advisory Board is convening in an online forum to discuss themes for this year’s conference. The conversation quickly migrated beyond the soft benefits of social collaboration to the hard, measurable benefits businesses need when navigating through tough times.

ITSinsider » Blog Archive » Reality Check 2.0

Susan generously quotes me in here blog post (copied below). The economic crisis will bring a level of sanity to the irrational exuberance associated with various catch-phrases (e.g., Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0,  social media, social networking, etc). The next 12-18 months will be time for "pragmatic due diligence" when it comes to social software. This emphasis on a realistic approach towards solutions driven by social software should not be an excuse for IT organizations to protect vendors they are comfortable with - this crisis could easily become a situation where IT groups leverage "cost reduction", "infrastructure overlap", and "integration complexity" as excuses to get rid of smaller vendors and retreat into comfort zones with platforms they identify with to a greater degree than the business areas they support.

I can already imagine lines like "we're reducing costs by getting rid of (insert E2.0 vendor here) because we've already paid for SharePoint and Microsoft promises that they will have a better (insert E2.0 component here re: blog, wiki, social networking) capability in the next release". Never mind that in the two years that this might be the case (and I stress the word "might"), you have to ask yourself - what business value will not have been realized by using bad tools instead of good tools? And by forcing bad tools on users - will we "poison the well" and make people less receptive to working differently based on a bad experience? Changing behaviors and getting people to alter their mindset concerning what tools to use has always been a huge barrier in the collaboration space.

In a recent post (Reader's Corner), I identified a misplaced focus on platforms, suites and point solutions when it comes to social software re: "those are valid discussions at some point - but you need to think about the change you're trying to bring about (business-wise and in terms of organizational dynamics)." A rational and architectural approach towards reducing vendors is a credible tactic - defacto tossing them under the bus is not so credible.

Pragmatic due diligence means that in addition to a return-to-basics (see the quote below), we also need to have a more thorough understanding of how user experience and adoption scenarios influence success. Right now we tend to think in terms of "deployment" when it comes to social software. Assessing adoption is more critical and represents a type of ROI that is hard to determine - IT organizations usually follow a Plan-Build-Run framework that often means Plan-Build-Runaway after the system is deployed. But since many social applications are not transactional or process-specific in a traditional sense (they can augment such systems, or be used in their own unique way) - it means we need to establish methods around adoption practices to gauge how people really get work done and how work models change as a result of social applications (which relates back to "due diligence - establishing a standard of care").

I don't believe that the pendulum will swing so far to the other extreme that all projects involving blogs, wikis, social networks, etc. will be suspended or canceled outright. Those involved in such projects however need to pragmatically focus on some of the items listed below, become more specific in terms of what change the project will bring about, and be prepared for some realignment (e.g., of funding, resources, etc). 

“Some of the phrases I keep hearing: 1. Efficiency (cost containment/avoidance, streamlining, etc.) 2. Execution (all-things-lean, process refinement) 3. Effectiveness (process and people performance, measurable productivity) 4. Rationalization (of budgets, of projects, of platforms) 5. Governance and metrics to support the above. Operations (run the business) and investment to protect top/bottom line engines (grow the business) are still ok – transformation unless it maps into some of the above areas is more discretionary – a good strategist will not cut to the bone… but overall – it’s a run/grow the business more than transformation. Business transformation (at least in my head) is more than just changing a process. Anything “soft” is getting a hard look – sure – some savvy execs will keep a portfolio perspective and still invest in some long-term areas and not slash things to the point that when the economy rights itself they are strategically behind but they (1) may not have any choice and (2) may not get broad agreement from their peers.”

They also need to think not in terms of plan - build - run but perhaps more along the lines of observe - design - adopt when it comes to social software. 

Reader's Corner: While I Was Away...

There have been several comments left on different blog posts that I have not been able to respond to of late. I thought I would summarize a few of them here:

Enterprise 2.0 & The Economic Downturn

Jordan provides commentary on several other blog posts and analysts reports. A couple of things come to mind: (1) The issue is not about "Enterprise 2.0". The issue is really about how organizations approach aspects related to business-case formation, sponsorship, funding, ROI/metrics, and the decision-making related to rationalizing and prioritizing IT initiatives. Vendors (and analysts) caught up in a debate on whether suites and point tools will survive better or whether suites versus entrenched platforms will survive better should be looking higher up in the decision-making chain rather than in the technology nuances. IT organizations able to deliver solutions that focus on operational efficiencies (e.g., cost reduction/avoidance), revenue enhancement (e.g., retaining business, growing account value), and organizational effectiveness (e.g., process execution) are likely to be more well-received than backing solutions that are viewed as a discretionary spend or as something "nice to have" when times are good. (2) That said - savvy leadership teams realize that slash-and-burn approaches are going to leave them behind when markets do right themselves - yes, it's about survival but you need to survive-and-thrive afterwards. Organizations that continue to invest in specific initiatives that might be considered transformational in nature could very-well find themselves in a more competitive position over the long run my looking at the economic downturn as a signal to shift how it invests in IT (as a portfolio) but not to abandon all investments in certain areas related to collaboration (including social tools). But it still is not about suites vs. point tools or about suites vs. platforms. Those are valid discussions at some point - but you need to think about the change you're trying to bring about (business-wise and in terms of organizational dynamics).

Jordan Frank, Traction Software On Post SharePoint vs. Connections: The Battle Continues

The Battle Continues: SharePoint and Connections vs. Enterprise 2.0 suites.

In a tough economic climate which coincides with broad acceptance of emerging "2.0" technology, it's becoming clear that this is the time when companies will choose to do more, with Enterprise 2.0 suites, for less.

http://traction.tractionsoftware.com/traction/permalink/Blog904

Social Software Short List

Gartner recently came out with its assessment of the social software market (view here). First, the short list I provided was based on a specific blog post reflective of my own research and interactions with clients so the list of endors listed should not be positioned as a market assessment. What makes a market assessment on social software so difficult is that (1) the space is incredibly large, (2) the space is comprised of many different sub-spaces so there is a great deal of technology diversity, (3) some sub-spaces are externally focused while others are more internally focused (e.g., intranet) so there is a great deal of solution diversity and (4) there are a large number of vendors (platforms, suites, point tools, open source, etc). I use the term "space" because you have to first define social software and agree that social software is a market. I do not have access to the report so I will leave that issue to those that have read it - but I think the effort would have been better served by breaking the topic down a bit. I just don't find it useful (and I don't mean to be negative from a competitive perspective) - when I look at it and try to let it speak for itself - I'm not sure what it's trying to say. Some of these vendors focus on social media (external solution) and have pulled themselves out of RFPs for intranet solutions. It seems like community vendors are represented but perhaps better served with a specific graphic - it's hard to figure out how to compare/contrast community vendors with point tools. Some vendors are platform vendors so yes, they have strong impact as a collaboration/content solution but their blog and wiki tools are pretty bad (e.g., Microsoft) or have components completely missing (e.g., IBM Lotus Connections does not have a native wiki). I can't see on the graphic where NewsGator is (or is not) so does that mean that feeds are not social software (which gets back to definition and market structure issues). I think it is just very difficult, if next-to-impossible, to plot social software vendors on a two dimensional graph, even if you can get by the debate as to whether social software is a market per se rather than a category of software within which multiple markets reside. My own take-away is that social software is a composite market (if it is a market) and best assessed by multiple graphics rather than a "mashup" approach. It's just really really hard to do this type of market segmentation and have it be useful for people when it includes so many different sub-categories - you end up with potpourri (a decorative mix) rather than something that might be practical for decision-makers.

Bagaba, On Post Social Networking (?) With Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007

I'd love to know how you came up with your short list. I see SO many vendors on the recent Gartner Magic Quadrant lumped closely together and I shudder to think what that list will look like in 2 years

Social Presence & Social Awareness

I would recommend reading "More Thoughts On Social Presence" which has links to some other posts on this topic. I do believe that a feed syndication platform forms the core of this approach and that a combination of Atom/AtomPub, XMPP, and microformats will also have a critical role.

Maurice, On Post Analytics: The Unsung Hero Of Social Systems

When you said "we want to consolidate all into one flow -- a single time-stamped thread -- that all apps can dip into" did you have any specific process in mind about how this would work, i.e. service, platform or system?

Project Status: Social Networking Within The Enterprise

Since my last update (October 28), my field research project has completed its most labor intensive phase. Phase 1 (Call For Participation) took about a month elapsed time (August 15 thru September 15). The focus of Phase 1 was to layout the project scope, construct the contextual research framework and finalize the list of participating organizations. Phase 2 (Interviews & Consolidation) took longer - about two months (September 15 through November 20). During that time I was on the road for around 40 days. The focus of Phase 2 was pretty labor intensive (refer to my prior update for some stats). Each interview session lasted an average of 90 minutes and produced a long set of handwritten notes (usually between 10-15 pages). After each interview session, an internal "interpretation session" with other analysts resulted in an "affinity statement" that summarized key points and finding from the interview. Affinity statements seemed to average around 60 line items. Phase 2 culminated with a "consolidation session" last week in Chicago which included 4 other analysts. For the consolidation session, each affinity statement is broken down into an individual line item as a "post-it note". While the complete affinity statement reflects the perspective of a single organization, during the consolidation session we are looking for horizontal patterns across all the individual data points regardless of organization. Breaking the affinity statements down into individual items allowed us to do a bottom-up sorting of the information into clusters that we could then organize into categories. These categories could then be further abstracted into a narrative of what is going on within organizations concerning social networks. The result was a wall covered with 35-40 sheets of flip chart paper with the 1700 post-it notes taped down into a hierarchy of sorts. The approach we applied (based on contextual design/inquiry) really does enable you to find commonalities across organizations and identify unique insights by letting the data "speak for itself".

Phase 3 should be more normal (in terms of time, labor, etc). Phase 3 involves deeper analysts of the information in order to write a research document. Originally I thought that the project would result in the normal 50 page Burton Group report. What we discovered is that we have so much data that a single document cannot address all the areas touched upon by participating organizations. Instead, I'll be writing a series of shorter documents (around 15 pages each) that will follow the storyline we created during the consolidation session last week. For those organizations that participated - there's no change - you will receive the "report" (whether you are a client or not) as a set rather than a single file, and you will still have the opportunity to discuss the findings as originally promised. It's just an incredible amount of data to wade through and I don't want to reduce the value of the information by arbitrarily cutting it short (in terms of a single report). 

As of today, the flip chart pages with the post-it notes are on their way to my home office. Once I get them up on the walls here (to the joy of my family who might not appreciate the new wallpaper downstairs in our cellar), I'll pass along some additional insight. Unfortunately, in order to meet my deliverable deadlines I've had to pass on attending Cisco's C-Scape (December) and IBM's Lotusphere (January) events. This has been an exhausting journey but I should be getting back to a more normal routine over the next few weeks - including posting on a more regular basis.

Oracle Buys Intellectual Property Assets of Tacit Software

Interesting - while Tacit was never a broad-based success on the market, it was considered unique in its underlying discovery, correlation and brokering engine. The acquisition should augment the capabilities Oracle had acquired from BEA regarding its Pathways product. I would imagine that ultimately - the assets will find their way into products other than Beehive - namely WebCenter (given its focus on Enterprise 2.0).

Enhances Oracle Beehive with Expertise Location Capabilities

REDWOOD SHORES, Calif – Nov 3, 2008

News Facts

Today Oracle announced that it has acquired the intellectual property assets of Tacit Software.

Tacit Software’s unique automated profiling technology is an expertise location solution that helps organizations uncover new opportunities for collaboration.

Oracle plans to integrate Tacit Software into Oracle Beehive, a secure, integrated, standards-based enterprise collaboration platform.

The combined solution is expected to enable enterprises to make effective and immediate use of the knowledge present in their people, messaging and content.

Financial details of the transaction were not disclosed.

Oracle Buys Intellectual Property Assets of Tacit Software