November 23rd, 2009

Fawning over Chatter and how SAP missed its chance

Posted by Dennis Howlett @ 5:50 pm

Categories: Social computing, Social software

Tags: Salesforce.com Inc., SFdC, Sales Force Management, Sales, Dennis Howlett

Ever since Salesforce.com announced Chatter, there’s been a rising crescendo of what I can only describe as fawning and uncritical waffle. It’s worrying.

As I’ve said before, Chatter is ESME with a few bells and whistles. Yet here we have everyone from Scoble to Mike Krigsman praising this as though it represents the second coming of IT. First up Scoble:

First, lots of people, including most of the Enterprise Irregulars who usually do a bang-up seemed to have missed the real news that Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce, announced this week at the TechCrunch Real-Time Crunchup: that Salesforce is going after the whole company, not just the sales people.

Robert - puhlease. I resent that. That’s way too simplistic a view. I called Scoble up on a time limited voice connection from the UK using a new SIM card that sucked my $$ faster than a Las Vegas slot machine. We didn’t get to complete the call so what I say here is based only in part on that conversation. As I said to Scoble: ‘Of course we got it. A year or more ago. And demo’d it in front of around 8,000 developers around the world. It is called ESME and is available as an open source project. I know a lot about that project as I was chief ‘handwaver’ and advocate both inside and outside the SAP community. So let’s be clear - in concept - Chatter is NOT new.

Here’s what ESME offers that Chatter doesn’t:

• It’s open source. You can play with it, figure if it works for you or discard at zero cost.
• It was built with scalability in mind. It’s based on the Scala/Lift framework. That’s what was used to help Twitter solve its problems a year or so ago when the Fail Whale was a common occurrence. Salesforce.com knows that if demand takes off, it has to solve the scaling issue very quickly. It reckons this will be done within a year. I’m suggesting that if they took on board the tenets of how ESME was built, they could do that inside 3-4 months.
• ESME was built with business process in mind. It was built to demonstrate problem resolution inside day to day business processes. Chatter doesn’t address that directly but indirectly. In conversations I had with Salesforce.com execs, they see it as a way to get customers to spend more on SFA or field service/call center apps that Salesforce sells. That’s a narrow view and not aligned with the broader view pundits are ascribing to the service.

In comments to Scoble’s post, Mike Krigsman punts the hush, hush, wink, wink idea that Salesforce.com already knows this could go deep into the enterprise. At one level he is absolutely correct. Yet SFdC handles a sliver of enterprise process capability:

The significance of Chatter is validating social computing in the enterprise, which you addressed in the comment from Jive’s CEO. Those who think Chatter is a trivial Twitter clone are short-sighted in their view. Based on off-the-record discussion with senior execs in a position to know, I can assure you that what we see today in Chatter is merely the tip of the iceberg. Social computing now has the strategic backing from one of the enterprise software heavyweights. That’s significant. By the way, if anyone doubts Salesforce’s commitment to Chatter, look no further than the the fact it is a new “force” platform module. That’s their bedrock platform.

[My emphasis added.]

Mike - this was validated a year ago. Admittedly it was early but it absolutely was validated by SAP and its immediate supporters at very large enterprises. Mike sat in on the same meetings I videod with Salesforce.com co-founder Parker Harris and (not videod) conversation with Brett Queener. Where is that over arching vision which he claims? Instead and including discussions with Steve Fisher who has to make this stuff work, I didn’t hear any of that hyperbole. Instead, I saw a measured acceptance that Salesforce has much to do before it can aspire to the predictions being made.

Herein lies the danger. Salesforce.com may well have its hands on something of real value. The fact it is giving it away for existing users tells me it sees long term value in the embedding to the Force.com platform. But…it has to monetize along the way because in Benioff’s words - this the next SFdC billion dollar opportunity. How?

When you parse that thought stream against business process you then need to examine what SFdC owns. The platform + SFS + field service + call center. Good though that is, it is a fraction of what makes a business tick or that which delivers breakthrough value unless you believe that sales based functions are at the forefront of delivered business value. I question that at multiple levels. Here’s one to get you going: Sun owns Java. Money shot?

Couple that with the acknowledged fact SFdC is wrestling with managing and filtering the noise v value clutter in the real time stream (which ESME arguably solved early on albeit at a rudimentary but workable level) and you can see this represents a big set of technical problems. To its credit, Salesforce.com acknowledges those issues and knows it doesn’t have a good answer. Today. That I respect. What I don’t respect are pundits writing strategy for the company by proxy when they have little understanding of the technical impediments.

So - before all the handwavers go declaring victory think this: Salesforce.com is a credible and major SaaS vendor. It is NOT a credible enterprise process vendor. At least not yet and doesn’t have a declred roadmap to get there under its monetizable ownership. It doesn’t own all the process steps where something like Chatter will deliver value yet owns the platform that allows these services to emerge.

Back to SAP. It had the chance to take ESME and make its own almost from the get go. It was built with Netweaver integration in mind. It had/has the potential to reach millions of users - today. So here’s the real difference.

Salesforce.com is brilliant at timing and packaging. For all the dopey naming of Chatter, Salesforce.com has the immediate mindshare that SAP could have owned a year or more ago. Does SAP get a second shot? Of course because ESME could be embedded in a matter of weeks/months while Salesforce.com tries to figure how it scales. SAP has millions of captive users where Salesforce has a fraction and more importantly, has only a tiny part of the total process view.

In the meantime - I invite readers to watch the video I recorded of Enterprise Advocates colleague Ray Wang speaking to SAP users earlier today in the UK. It puts much of this into perspective. (see top of post.)

Finally - and to repeat - I didn’t get to finish the conversation with Scoble. I trust this post will help flesh out where I am coming from on this important discussion.

UPDATE: Scoble was kind enough to respond in comments, concentrating on the pricing issue. That’s OK but doesn’t address what enterprise will do - free or not. That’s why process in this discussion is so important. It’s way beyond what he calls ‘features.’

November 9th, 2009

Enterprise 2.0: now we're talking

Posted by Dennis Howlett @ 6:38 am

Categories: ERP, Social computing, Social software

Tags: Industry, Social Computing, Enterprise 2.0, E2.0, Alex Williams, Susan Scrupski, Social Networking, Online Communications, Marketing, Advertising & Promotion

[Warning: extra long post]

It’s always a joy when a post provokes a stack of other posts that add value to the discussion. My curmudgeonly rant about the ‘what a crock’ non-debate did the trick. I would have been deeply disappointed if it hadn’t provoked a response. Before responding to the various arguments it’s worth contextualizing where I’m coming from:

The software industry is littered with the bodies of failure. Those same failures have cost business billions of dollars. It provides the backdrop against which my colleague Mike Krigsman writes story after story how tech fails its intended buyers. There is no reason to believe that Enterprise 2.0 is any different. Check the video on my personal weblog: How communities can fail.

The expression ‘Enterprise 2.0′ is riddled with difficulty not least because it pre-supposes a technology solution to what in my view is an ill-defined or at times non-existent problem. That is compounded by the fact E2.0 was defined by an academic. Few people in the business world are prepared to take on academia. It’s a dangerous game to play, especially when that game seems to fit so neatly around an attractive play.

I don’t need to recrunch the ’social’ thing but it is an important factor that in my mind amply illustrates the lack of intellectual rigor around solution creation. It is good to see that in the discourse even my sharpest critics have acknowledged the emphasis and use of ’social’ as a dreadful mistake. That admission alone should provide topic thinkers with an escape hatch through which they can reframe this topic.

I wasn’t there is person but take Timo Elliott’s account as an accurate reflection of events. The problem is that while billed as a debate, there wasn’t one. How could there be when only one side of the argument was represented? It should therefore be no surprise when critics such as I get up on hind legs and bellow at the crowd, often in unflattering terms.

So to the specifics.

Read the rest of this entry »

October 30th, 2009

SOMESSO: social computing meets financial services

Posted by Dennis Howlett @ 5:16 am

Categories: Social computing, Social software

Tags: Financial Service, Social Computing, Fidor, Social Networking, Online Communications, Marketing, Advertising & Promotion, Dennis Howlett

Next Monday and Tuesday I will be attending SOMESSO in Zurich. This is an event that covers the intersection between the financial services industry and social computing. According to the blurbs:

Day 1 is reserved for corporate workshops for Finance and Banking professionals (Finance Masterclass) on the topic Web 2.0 and its application to business collaboration

On Day 2 you will hear top notch keynotes and presentations from today’s leading experts at the conference.

Financial services is where I started my career and a business sector in which I have a long term interest. If financial services can find good ways to leverage social computing then that will indicate social computing in general has moved a very long way down the track towards mainstream acceptance.

It’s not unusual to see financial services organizations as early technology adopters. However, social computing carries many potential risks and can be impacted by regulatory concerns. Compound that with the mess that banking and insurance has been in the last few years and it is hardly a surprise that this area of computing has been largely ignored.

It will be interesting to hear the discussions around what can and cannot be achieved in areas like collaboration and community. The Google Wave and Gravity demo I videoed at SAP TechEd provides one example of where this ’stuff’ can go. What might social computing bring to the analysis of risk? How might collaboration close the gap and solve the problems that exist between front and back office trading operations? Is there a place for new kinds of community based banking? Fidor thinks so. How is social computing changing access to funds in parts of the world that would traditionally found it difficult to raise money? On this last point, I am looking forward to hearing more about the Kiva story. I’m expecting a fascinating learning day.

There’s still time to book for those interested in this topic.

Disclosure: I’m driving the online presence and SOMESSO is covering my travel.

September 2nd, 2009

Enterprise 2.0: answering some of the tough questions

Posted by Dennis Howlett @ 12:29 pm

Categories: Social computing, Social software

Tags: Social Computing, Enterprise 2.0, Social Networking, Online Communications, Marketing, Advertising & Promotion, Dennis Howlett

Euan Semple on the New Web from Dennis Howlett on Vimeo.

Following on from my Enterprise 2.0: what a crock post, I thought it might be useful to show Euan Semple’s perspective on what this ’stuff’ is all about.

Euan and I met earlier in the year and I wanted to explore some of the themes underpinning much of what we see surrounding the E2.0 meme. Key take aways from this 13 minute discussion:

• Enterprise 2.0 has served to describe some of the tools but is not always a helpful notion
• Community is not necessarily a good way to describe what is going on
• Acknowledging that management is not necessarily equipped to understand the shifts that are being exposed through the use of social computing technology does not necessarily imply business change management projects
• Understanding that the technology is an enabler for exposing the value which can emerge from broader cultural shifts should help business better grasp the values which can be unlocked
• Assisting companies in coming to terms with change is hard work - arguably harder than earlier forms of process change
• Broad adoption may easily take 50 years or two generations. This needs to be seen from the perspective of the web being only some 30 years old
• One of the biggest risks to seeing these changes through is a lack of patience

I don’t necessarily agree with everything that Euan says but I respect his experience and practical approach to the E2.0 issues. It contrasts markedly with much of the hand waving I see elsewhere and which does not jibe with my own experience in this arena. I am with Euan that some enthusiasts massively under estimate the effort needed to help organizations make discernible steps on the road to business transformation.

I will return separately to the many helpful blog posts that emerged from my earlier crack at this topc. They make excellent points but as always leave nagging questions.

August 20th, 2009

Jeremiah Owyang quits Forrester

Posted by Dennis Howlett @ 9:06 am

Categories: Social computing, Social software

Tags: Analyst, Blog, Forrester Research Inc., Jeremiah Owyang, Ray Wang, Blogging, Benefits, Internet, Human Resources, Dennis Howlett

Some will parse this as an exodus but following on from Ray Wang’s departure from Forrester, we now learn Jeremiah Owyang is on his way to pastures new. From the Interactive Marketing Professionals Forrester blog:

Nearly two years ago, I heard that an influential blogger was interested in an analyst job at Forrester. I had just taken over management of our interactive marketing team and to my complete pleasure was able to hire that blogger — Jeremiah Owyang.

And so it’s on a bittersweet note that I share that Jeremiah has decided to leave Forrester at the end of this month. All of you who connect with Jeremiah through his reports, blog posts, and tweets know that he is an enthusiastic teacher, a client advocate, and a creative force. We will miss his exuberance and his contribution to the Forrester “Idea Factory”. We will miss him. What’s next for Jeremiah? He’s going back into the field to apply the trends. I expect that he’ll still sleep in shifts so that he can stay connected. :-)

It’s obviously a shock to Forrester, coming so soon after Ray Wang’s departure.

I’ve known Jeremiah a couple of years and while we’ve had our share of tetchy ‘moments’ (I am not a fan of the incessant consumer facing social media hand waving) his enormous stature as a consumer facing social computing analyst cannot be denied. I had a sneaking feeling something was afoot when he reached out to me a couple of weeks back - we’d not spoken in ages. I hasten to say that nothing was revealed at that time.  I also have a feeling he’ll be learning about enterprisey stuff in early course. But we’ll see.

So what’s going on in the analyst community? When Ray departed, Vinnie Mirchandani provided a solid insight:

Analyst firms like Gartner and Forrester, unlike investment banks, do not really encourage “superstars”. Ray’s compensation was likely less than 10% of revenues he was  directly or indirectly bringing to Forrester. It’s funny because I had the same realization precisely a decade ago about how under-compensated I was.

It isn’t just about compensation and despite what Vinnie says, I remember the days when getting a press call with a top flight Gartner analyst was like pulling hens teeth. At conferences, you’d literally have to mug them to get an interview. Folk like Jeremiah and Ray have gone out of their way to make themselves available - even to curmudgeonly old fools like me. Why would they do that?

I sense there are several things at play. The analysts firms are starting to realize that clipping the wings of their brightest and best just ain’t going to work. Blogs are too easy to set up and use, they provide a great channel for their thinking and a solid way of gleaning feedback in real-time. That’s enormously valuable to the firm and unquestionably drives business.

We’re also seeing the emergence of the personal brand - Ray and Jeremiah have that in spades. It’s something they work ridiculously long hours at, taking huge risks along the way. Why would they give all of that up to the larger firm when there is so much more they could do in the wider world? It’s a non sequitor.

Changes in the compensation model may help retain the next rock star analyst but somehow I doubt it. The analyst firms are going to have to get used to their brightest and best viewing the analyst bench as but a stepping stone for greater things. That has to impact the business model and quite how the firms respond remains to be seen.

In the meantime - congratulations to Jeremiah. Job done.

Jeremiah’s own announcement

May 22nd, 2009

Weekend stuff: learning with Suw via Twitter

Posted by Dennis Howlett @ 11:11 am

Categories: Social computing, Social software

Tags: Twitter, Suw, Vinnie, Social Networking, Branding, Online Communications, Marketing, Advertising & Promotion, Dennis Howlett

I often hear how Twitter is the magic bullet to so many things and as a hardcore enterprisey type and despite my personal Twitt-addiction, I’d usually say: ‘Pft.’ Today taught me a couple of things that may yet change my mind.

Suw Charman-Anderson, a UK colleague randomly Tweeted about Folksy.com. It’s one of those nick-nack type sites that offer a range of impulse buy goods at modest cost. At a time of recession, buying something from these types of place can serve as a good antidote to feeling miserable and avoids the alternative of going to the pub with morning after regrets. Suw has a ’shop’ inside Folksy and I decided to buy something as a surprise gift. Good value + giving smiles + surprise = happiness. Right?

Unfortunately Suw’s shop doesn’t ship to my location. Enter Twitter. How to solve the shipping problem? See the Tweet below:

That led to a short email exchange where we agreed the best way forward was to add something extra to the base price so that Suw is all good on shipping costs. I also gave her a UK address plus my Spanish address so that we could overcome the ‘process problem.’ PayPal took care of the transaction.

What did I learn:

• In a hyper connected and distributed world, exceptions are the norm - get over it.
• Working with your customers to find a solution in the absence of an easy process change is the way to go.
• Prompt action tells me you care about me.
• Social tools are great but let’s not forget that some things have to happen in the closed world of email.
• Learning from the process issue (Suw said the site is beta but there is a switch she can flip) can help you expand your market.
• Social solutions don’t necessarily scale. Imagine if Suw was suddenly inundated with requests. How might she cope with them without ticking off customers? A blanket Twitter response? Sounds like a plan to me.

The fact Suw isn’t a recognized ‘brand’ doesn’t matter. She’s exposed on Twitter, her web presence and her shop. Ergo she has a brand which is worth protecting. Some might argue that brand is essential if sales from that source represent an important part of income.

Switch gears.

Read the rest of this entry »

April 15th, 2009

Twitter is Dangerous: revista

Posted by Dennis Howlett @ 6:15 am

Categories: Social computing, Social software

Tags: Twitter, Scoble, Dennis Howlett

I’m probably miles behind some tech complaint curve everyone else knows about, but having spent four hours trying to gain control of my Twitter account I’m at the point of pulling what’s left of my hair out. Here’s what’s happened.

The last few days I noticed the number of people I am allegedly following rise dramatically. The reason I noticed was because I started to get a bunch of direct messages thanking me for following.  (see pic below)

Within a couple of days the number of these spurious follows had rocketed from some 1,300 to over 1,900 with around 300 added last night. I reckon I’m a reasonably sociable if curmudgeonly person but there is no way that I can realistically follow random people to that extent. Scoble’s got the lock on that ability. That’s why I regularly cull follows and only follow those where I can see a likely connection to my interests.

Without wishing to appear a total dope I asked whether anyone else has experienced the same problem. Lo and behold I am not alone - so not a total dope. (see pic below but there are other examples) The irony is that @paulthomas_tx is someone I’ve never heard of but I am following.

OK - so what to do?

Read the rest of this entry »

April 13th, 2009

Enterprise 2.0 promise is years off...if it materializes

Posted by Dennis Howlett @ 9:35 am

Categories: Social computing, Social software

Tags: Collaboration, Blog, ROI, Enterprise 2.0, E2.0, Hugh MacLeod, Roi/Tco, Finance, Managerial Accounting, Dennis Howlett

At the risk of bringing the wrath of the Enterprise 2.0 fans crashing around this blog I’m taking a deliberately contrarian view of Dion Hinchcliffe’s recent Determining the ROI of Enterprise 2.0. My intention is not to upend Dion’s argument but to expand upon the issues. First up, Dion does a spirited job of waving the E2.0 flag. Lots of cool looking graphics (One of Dion’s strengths, not one of mine) draw you into believing that the Nirvana of E2.0 is within grasp. The reality, as Dion and everyone else connected to this trend knows, is very different.

The first problem with Dion’s analysis is that it extrapolates a handful of case studies into a mega trend. This is unsafe, even though Dion readily acknowledges that:

Susan Scrupski has also been exploring the ROI of Enterprise 2.0 and in her call for case studies recently highlighted that while we have a good number of them, there is still not enough ROI coverage in a wide set of industries.

What is a good number? That’s anyone’s guess but I keep hearing more or less the same stories with little what I would call breakthrough value discovery.

The second and most serious problem with the analysis is its reliance on ‘jam tomorrow’ as an inducement to feed the trend. It is all very well saying that something is emergent but that cuts little ice in the C-suite where the current focus is on cost reduction - usually of the order of 20%. Dion attempts to rationalize the problem by discussing three issues, summarized as follows:

1. Wariness that we’re looking at ‘pot of gold’ technology
2. Cultural concerns
3. Difficulty in finding ROI measures

The first two arguments are ones I frequently run up against. The first arises out of the almost incessant hand waving I see coming from marketers, convinced that E2.0 is the Next Big Thing but who fail to provide any tangible proof beyond cuddly kumbaya stories. Marketers would do far better to concentrate on a sliver of functionality that has meaning to the C-suite rather than grand statements, laced with competitive FUD.

The second is a very real problem that at times seems intractable. We’ve been talking collaboration for more years than I care to remember but as Oliver Marks knows only too well, getting a department on board let alone an enterprise can be a mind numbing, thankless task. I spend most of my life in the ‘knowledge’ industries but even there it can be like pulling hen’s teeth. The problem comes down to the individual perception of IP value and how that might be threatened. In short, what we’re really facing is a power struggle.

Remember the way call centers got adopted like crazy in the mid-90’s? That was a power play by sales executives used to justify CRM investments. It made call center directors a power center that allowed for increased investments accompanied by more power concentration. But look where we’ve ended up. I can count on the fingers of less than two hands the number of companies’ call centers with which I’d be happy to do business. Was it a good way to improve customer service? Is the proliferation of marketing based Twitter accounts any better? Will the power centers crumble as a result?

Read the rest of this entry »

March 23rd, 2009

The future of Twitter: SocialBRP

Posted by Dennis Howlett @ 6:34 am

Categories: CRM, Enterprise applications, Social computing, Social software

Tags: Siemens AG, Twitter, ESME, Goodness, Sales Force Management, Branding, Marketing Research, Sales, Marketing, Dennis Howlett

As I said elsewhere, I missed most of the weekend fun following Robert Scoble’s sputter of posts on the Facebook/Twitter thing that starts here and spilled into Techmeme.  My concern has centered around the concentration of thinking on all things marketing. That’s an easy thing to do. After all, on the Internet, everyone’s a pimp for something. Right? Even so, it strike me that represents limited thinking.

Jeremiah Owyang, Forrester analyst got in on the act but in his limited world, everything starts and stops with brands although he does a credible job of parsing the Twitter element around the topic du jour, Salesforce.com’s Twitterizing its applications:

As a result, brands will start to monitor –then manage– the discussions that happen online. I was briefed by Clara Shih (related book), the creator of FaceForce (now called Faceconnector) (Facebook + SalesForce integration) last week, and while I think they’ve taken one step forward –there’s more to be done in confirming IDs, influence, and intent to buy. Update: Here’s the Service Cloud site, which emphasizes customer service and support.

Owyang starts to get to the real point when he mentions the A-word: analytics. But in order to make a credible job of that, marketers are going to require a new set of measures against which they can parse their campaigns. The problem with that is marketing is generally very poor at doing this kind of thing. They have an anathema towards being measured, preferring fluffy stuff like page views. Or delivery of a TV commercial campaign on budget (and look how gorgeous it is.)

Salesforce.com on the other hand is taking the relatively safe route of concentrating on service and support. I expect we’ll hear a lot more about that on today’s investor call. It’s a safe route because it is something that business can easily parse into operations, through which efficiencies can be found and relationships fostered. It’s an easy win on the efficiency side, provided (again) the analytics and logistics are in place. Relationships? That’s a lot more ephemeral.

Scoble reckons that:

Yes, we’re having another baby. But look at what did NOT happen on Twitter: not a single diaper company contacted us yet. Not a single maternity clothing company. Not a single car company (yes, we’re going to buy a new one soon). Not a single camera company (already bought a new one for this occasion). Not a single insurance company (I need more). Not a single bank (I need to start saving for another college student). Not a single stroller company (need a new one that can hold two). Not a single vitamin company (Maryam is going through her prenatal vitamins at a good clip). Not a single shoe company (Maryam needs new shoes for pregnancy, and Milan is growing fast too).

That will NOT last.

…which Owyang parses to signal a beating to Scoble’s door by the brands. That’s fine except few outside Silicon Valley really knows who he is in the same way that anyone working in a niche is necessarily limited in their reach. Even if you say well OK that will be another form of marketing where’s the moolah for Twitter? Nowhere.

What everyone seems to be missing is that the real opportunity for Twitter comes from within the enterprise and its business ecosystem. That’s why a bunch of us developed ESME and why Siemens SIS is piloting it. We understood that microblogging can do what blogs, wikis and the other Enterprise 2.0 applications paraphernalia cannot do: provide instant discovery and results mechanisms. To quote from the release:

”ESME helps to build communities and thus fosters efficient, company-wide communication between employees“, says Richard Hirsch, project manager for ESME at Siemens IT Solutions and Services. Companies utilizing innovative Enterprise 2.0 concepts are mainly seeking to improve communication between teams in geographically separate locations. What makes ESME special is that machines and software systems can also be integrated into the communication process. This opens up new possibilities for shaping working processes and boosts company productivity as a whole.

The last three years, my E2.0 colleagues have struggled long and hard to find solid evidence of breakthrough value. The cases are horribly thin on the ground. However, Twitteresque services could easily swing that pendulum the other way. Unquestionably, it will requires serious investment in analysis tools. But business ecosystem wins in the knowledge stream, tied to context and often barely repeatable processes is a mouthwatering prospect. That will be much more attractive than outward facing marketing because BRP is what 80% of knowledge workers spend their time doing. That’s where the largest potential gains in effectiveness lay.

Does Twitter win in these circumstances? Possibly but as time goes on I see it getting further way from ‘the money’ while competing services emerge that can tap directly into the big business systems. If Siemens is successful in piloting ESME for instance, that’s an entree into a massive ecosystem of buyers. Siemens itself has some 400,000 employees. Goodness knows how many people it reaches. My point is simple: you only need a handful of Siemens to have enormous impact and quickly eclipse Twitter itself. That’s one reason why IBM is going hell for leather with its own social computing strategy.

In the meantime as a touring aside @jack is in Sevilla. He’s being picked up at the airport by my good friend @AlbertoAranda. Alberto doesn’t speak much English. I hope Jack Dorsey learns to speak enterprise.

UPDATE: no sooner had I stabbed the ‘publish’ button than @ccmehil reminded me that collection of social graph data doesn’t have to be restricted to Twitter and Facebook. Other services are in play such as his own @eventtrack which can vacuum up data from multiple services such as FriendFeed and Flickr. As he said on a Tweet:

@dahowlett you know it does brand tracking as well as people tracking and event tracking right?

Like Twitter, @ccmehil has yet to find a solid way of monetizing his idea.

March 10th, 2009

Jive talking: Easy to underestimate effort required to get people engaged

Posted by Dennis Howlett @ 6:44 am

Categories: Social computing, Social software

Tags: Question, Change Management, AJAX, Workforce Management, Training And Certification, Sales Tools, Sales Force Management, Tools & Techniques, Management, Internet

Oliver Marks and Larry Dignan both have a take on Jive Software’s Social Business Suite 3.0 announcement. As Oliver says, we talked at length about the topic last evening.

On the one hand this is unquestionably a brave move. Carving out a new category, complete with TLA is not something you’d expect to see in a recession. But Jive thinks it’s got enough development and marketing runway to take a tilt at the enterprise market. Looking at the stack, SBS 3 definitely has that ‘enterprisey’ feel.

The question is whether it can carve its own path or gets caught between the jaws of the IBM/Microsoft vise. Sam Lawrence, Jive’s CMO is ready for those questions: “You can’t put whipped cream on pig manure and expect people to not notice the difference,’” he quips, referring to attempts at putting cute AJAX look and feel to what he believes are ‘old’ products. Even so, it begs the question: Is Jive creating a category to compete with the Big Boys like Microsoft, IBM, SAP and Oracle (MISO) or is it building out to flip?

I suspect the latter given that competitors often view what Jive is doing as ‘features’ rather than product. It wouldn’t for example surprise me to find that SAP comes knocking on Jive’s door. It’s a big Jive user for its various ecosystems and a good number of SAPpers have bought into the whole ’social business’ thought stream.

The real question though is whether in say a year’s time, Jive will be able to shout loud about success stories where collaboration has truly taken hold. Lawrence said the genesis of the suite came from large customers coming back saying this is what they want. I have no doubt and if true then it implies business is finally getting the collaborative vibe. But as Oliver Marks correctly surmises:

Dennis Howlett and I discussed today’s briefing this afternoon and the 90-9-1 rule came up: 1% are creators, 9% editors and the other 90% are a passive audience of lurkers.

Jive have their Clearstep community for users, extensive training materials and a new consulting wing to help customers get traction, but the reality for all ’social community’ roll outs is that the software is a relatively minor component compared to the change management required to drive uptake and usage and to weave the software into the business fabric of day to day use.

Careful strategic planning and being careful what you wish for are still much more important than the latest shiny objects, particularly now that JIve propose you entrust all you relationships and communication to their enterprise-class environment.

This is the real sticking point. Communities with which I have an engagement regularly follow the 1/9/90 rule. It seems that despite best efforts, it is a devil’s own job to shift that 1% needle, even in organizations where the principle capital is tied up in people’s knowledge. It is all too easy to underestimate the effort required to get people engaged. Especially when most folk come to work because they have to earn a living wage rather than because they have some emotional tie to the business.

social sentiment

Jive believes that can change when people see the value of aggregating information across otherwise siloed operations but as Lawrence says: “It’s a bit like Twitter - most people just don’t get the point until they see it for themselves.”  That makes for a tortuous sales cycle, especially at the higher levels of management to which Jive will have to appeal. Even so and despite the doom and gloom in the enterprise software market, Jive is on a roll at the moment, regularly snagging good deals. I hope they don’t end up as shelfware.