Social Glass

Apologies for the lack of posts.  I’ve started a new job this week as a Development Manager for a company in San Diego and have been busy coming up to speed on everything (and everybody) I’ll need to know to do my job.  What an interesting 6 months.

1. I worked in Austria from late June to mid August.
2. Moved to Sydney from mid August to mid October.
3. Moved back to Melbourne from mid October to December.
4. Repatriated to the United States in December and was in Colorado to mid January.
5. Moved to San Francisco for a month, and…
6. Took a job in San Diego which I started yesterday.

All that time I’ve been co-authoring a book and have tried to keep blogging.  Man I can’t wait to be settled again.

(interesting now that I’m in the US I’m still posting at 5pm Aussie time)

I’d like to direct your attention to a post by Jevon MacDonald called Enterprise 2.0: Where the f$#@ is my market? where he asks:

Is there such thing as an Enterprise 2.0 market? If so, can you sell in to it? If not: are there startups trying to sell to customers who don’t exist?

and answers by stating:

There is no Enterprise 2.0 market. Enterprise 2.0 budgets do not exist, except where some early adoptors create them, and there is no Enterprise 2.0 sales cycle. There are very few incentive available to experts right now and the discontinuity that has arisen in the concept is a symptom of that.

Jevon goes on to argue that an Enterprise 2.0 Software Market is validated only when there is a problem that software can solve on its own. Otherwise “The people who are making the most money off this term right now are consultants who are helping their clients navigate some of the fluff from the substance”.

I agree with this. As a consultant I’ve always considered Enterprise 2.0 to be more about shifting corporate culture than introducing new technology (although I write a lot about technology in this blog). I remember a quote from Paula Thornton where she wrote “..how many psychologists do you have on your team” as “we’re building products that should be influenced by the laws of human nature” instead of advances in technology.

When implementing Enterprise 2.0 we need to include strategies to change old school mindsets and get people to ask “why shouldn’t I share this information” instead of “why should I share this information”, for example.

Jevon does go on to say that Enterprise 2.0 software can be successful when focusing on industry verticals where, after a series of successful implementations there, a broader, more horizontal market might appear. Check out his post here.

I wanted to share a great quote from a Gartner Analyst responding to CIO criticism of Web 2.0:

“Security is not about zero risk it is about managed risk. Accept there will be a few security failures.

“No risk means no reward. Stop talking about all the bad things that can happen and talk about what these technologies enable”…

“Relax, innovate. The goal is managed risk.”

Read more at computerworld.com.au.

In a previous post I described an Enterprise 2.0 implementation roadmap. The last component in the roadmap is Enterprise Mashups. In a utopian world, enterprise mashups give the knowledge worker spreadsheet-like flexibility to dynamically create composite applications that suit his specific business needs. Companies like Kapow, Serena Software and IBM are building enterprise mashup engines, but none have reached this utopian state.

Dion Hinchliffe wrote a great post about challenges facing enterprise mashups. He identifies 10:

1. No Commonly Accepted Assembly Model
2. An Immature Services Landscape
3. The Splintering of Widgets
4. Management and Support of End-User Mashup Apps
5. Deep Support for Security and Identity
6. Data Quality and Accuracy
7. Version Management
8. Awareness and Realization of the Potential of Mashups by the Business Community
9. Low Levels of Support by Major Software Firms
10. Few Killer Demo Apps

In my professional life I’ve encountered obstacles around items 2 and 4 when discussing enterprise mashups with potential clients. We can show impressive demos, like IBM’s QEDWiki, but we’d need a seriously mature SOA to build the “widgets” a knowledge worker would use to create such a mashup (issue 2). And Dion asks who’s going to support these things once they break? “The IT department? The business units? Using what tools” (issue 4). Good question.

At the end of the day an enterprise must have a strong SOA initiative and support from IT before the value proposition behind enterprise mashups can be fully realized.

I’ve made a lot of effort in promoting Enterprise 2.0 and in using E2.0 technologies in the workplace. I discussed in an earlier post how my team uses blogs to communicate ideas about technology trends. And we are starting to use wikis and social bookmarking internally.

But I must say my natural inclination is to write and email MS Word documents - especially when it’s crunch time and the rest of the team can care less about Enterprise 2.0 - we need to make a deadline. In fact, I’ve noticed that in the face of pressure people tend to abandon Enterprise 2.0 all together and fall back on communication methods they’re used to. Everybody uses email, everybody is expected to respond to email, and a lot of important work gets done via email.

I suppose the point is cultural change is hard. It’s hard not to fall back on old habits. But I suppose to make this work I need to be stern and fight my inclinations.