November 2nd, 2009

Five definitions toward the maturing of Enterprise 2.0

Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 7:14 pm

Categories: CIO issues, Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 Conference, Enterprise2conf, IT issues, SaaS, PaaS, and SOA

Tags: Apple iPod, Fragmentation, Enterprise 2.0, Conference, Miko, Enterprise, Michael Krigsman

The excellent Enterprise 2.0 Conference is currently in full swing in San Francisco. Given the excitement around this conference, now’s a perfect time to re-examine the “enterprise” part of Enterprise 2.0.

In this guest blog post, Miko Matsumura, Vice President and Chief Strategist of Software AG, offers a humorous look at the Enterprise 2.0 movement. In addition to his position at Software AG, Miko is the author of the book, SOA Adoption for Dummies.

Miko’s underlying message is important: to be successful, Enterprise 2.0 activities must remain rooted in the practical realities of real companies, processes, and corporate cultures. I share this perspective. Although the tone and images are funny, I assure you the message is serious.

———–

It’s a cool sunny day in San Francisco. I’m at the Moscone center where there’s some bustle around the Enterprise 2.0 conference. You can tell it’s an Enterprise conference because, unlike the Web 2.0 Conference, there’s no free pass even to the show floor. Also, the full pass is about $2500 bucks.

As I’ve been discussing on Twitter @mikojava and in my blog, here are my top five definitions of Enterprise. Feel free to chime in with your views via Twitter, email or my blog.

One way to define Enterprise is:

en⋅ter⋅prise:
/ˈɛntərˌpraɪz/ [en-ter-prahyz]
-noun

5. Stuff I wouldn’t do unless you paid me.

This definition puts Enterprise squarely in the camp of crime scene janitorial services. It adds a concept of “professional” to the discussion and establishes the Enterprise as the realm of uncomfortable clothing.

I recall reconnecting with Arthur Van Hoff after our adventures in Java and having him laugh at me because I was wearing (in his words) an “IQ Restrictor,” his parlance for a necktie. This definition also puts a dynamic tension between the “Suits” at the Enterprise 2.0 conference and the boho hipsters wearing the Emo Hair.

4. Software that sucks.

This was the definition I evoked in my post “The Human Enterprise.” To be honest, I introduced the idea of “The Human Enterprise” as a direct counter-proposal to “Enterprise 2.0.”

I think the piece that was missing from The Human Enterprise is the extent to which fragmentation plays a role in the essential nature of the Enterprise, which is a theme I’ve been addressing more lately in terms of the effect of sheer size on the Enterprise.

Read the rest of this entry »

June 29th, 2009

Enterprise 2.0: The Kumbaya irony

Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 4:11 pm

Categories: CIO issues, Cultural issues, Enterprise 2.0 Conference, Enterprise2conf, IT issues, Project management, SaaS, PaaS, and SOA

Tags: Enterprise 2.0, Tasks, Groups, Current Resource Allocation Process, Dissenters, Michael Krigsman

Last week I attended the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston. It’s one of my favorite events, primarily because so many online friends attend from around the world and I enjoy their company. Despite overwhelming good will among participants, the conference exposed gaps between expectations and reality that continue to plague the Enterprise 2.0 world.

Enterprise 2.0 aspirations. Enterprise 2.0 suggests a network of organizational activities involving collaboration, cooperation, and engagement as part of a broader ethos of social interaction in business. Professor Andrew McAfee, formerly of Harvard Business School and currently with MIT, coined the phrase Enterprise 2.0. Andy recently blogged about implications of this new system of thought on managing organizations and leading teams.

Andy’s blog elaborated on a piece in the Wall Street Journal by Gary Hamel, which describes “12 work-relevant characteristics of online life.” The post provides a convenient summary of an Enterprise 2.0 view of management:

Read the rest of this entry »

October 9th, 2008

Robert Scoble and sexy enterprise software

Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 4:16 pm

Categories: CIO issues, Enterprise 2.0 Conference, IT issues

Tags: Robert Scoble, PROJECT FAILURES ANALYSIS Robert, Enterprise Software, Software, Michael Krigsman

Big name blogger, Robert Scoble, has again forayed into enterprise software territory. This time, it appears he’s finally recognized that enterprise software is sexy.

During a previous enterprise-land journey, Robert baited the Enterprise Irregulars and created a blogging firestorm by claiming enterprise software is not sexy. He also complained that big companies foist enterprise systems on unsuspecting users:

Some CIO somewhere else made that decision and forced us all to use [insert your favorite enterprise software vendor here]. That doesn’t exactly make us warm and fuzzy about the computer sitting in front of us on the desk.

Fast forward, almost a year later, and Robert seems to be climbing on-board the enterprise train. In a recent post about enterprise email, he addresses fundamental business value issues:

I am looking for companies that solve REAL pain in enterprises and that deliver real benefits to bottom lines and productivity.

In another post, Robert discusses enterprise-class scalability and suggests a strategic business perspective:

[H]ow to build scalable and performant Web services, especially given that tomorrow’s services are probably going to be glued together from a variety of services?

Read the rest of this entry »

June 21st, 2008

Social project management?

Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 3:44 pm

Categories: CIO issues, Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 Conference, Enterprise2conf, Project management, Tools

Tags: Project, Team, Social Media, Project Management, Tools & Techniques, Team Management, Strategy, It Operations, It service Management, Management

Joe Thornley blogs about an Enterprise 2.0 conference presentation, by Leisa Reichelt, that discusses “social project management.” The premise centers on using social media — presumably wikis, blogs, and the like — to enhance connectedness among project participants, thereby reducing the rate of project failures.

Joe lists attributes of traditional projects:

• Top down: an extensive hierarchy with information trickling down. But getting the information back up is difficult.
• Gantt Charts: The bigger, the uglier, the better. Reichelt notes that these are enormously optimistic. How often do they have any resemblance to reality?
• Many stakeholders: The project manager seeks out all of the stakeholders and the stakeholders put in as many requests as they possibly can. One problem of project management is that too often it seeks to satisfy stakeholders. This is different from satisfying end users.
• Complex dependencies: Escalating demands leads to complexities which leads to delays.
• Risk registers: !
• Horizon & beyond timelines: Planning a project now that will be useful and realistic in 18 months. How often does this really work?
• Expected failure: This kills team morale. But is it all too common.

He also describes smaller, social projects:

• Small teams: a developer, a designer and a sweeper.
• Made up of smart, motivated people.
• Limited planning. Non-essential documentation and highly detailed specification are dispensed with. Sketching and agreement on fundamentals are the focus.
• Minimal scope: Less is more. Build less.
• Multi-skilled teams: Look for people with multi-disciplinary skills.
• Fast pace: Speed is essential to produce results within a limited budget.
• Rapid release: Take it out to the community quickly and ask them to participate in alpha and beta testing.
• Feedback: End user feedback is sought to refine the product.
• Responsiveness: Speed and close contact with users leads to quick reaction to feedback.
• Iteration: Constant change.

Since projects fail primarily due to non-technical causes, any tools and methodologies that encourage better management and communication are bound to help. Still, as Joe correctly points out, the social project management approach breaks down on large projects.

Although social media offers no panacea to the problem of failed projects, managers should keep an open mind. Social media does show promise to substantively assist project management, although it’s still too early in the lifecycle to know where the real benefits will emerge.

June 13th, 2008

Jive's Sam Lawrence on Enterprise 2.0: "It's a buzzword" [podcast]

Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 6:46 am

Categories: Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 Conference, Enterprise2conf, IT issues, Podcast

Tags: Enterprise 2.0, Sam, Podcasts, Internet, Michael Krigsman

This week’s Enterprise 2.0 Conference in Boston featured a host of small companies hoping to sell sexy, cool software to large companies. Many of these vendors won’t survive because they don’t understand how the enterprise buys, uses, and deploys applications. In this podcast, I asked Jive Software’s chief marketing officer, Sam Lawrence, to dissect the “enterprise” part of Enterprise 2.0.

Sam discusses the complexity of enterprise requirements and describes Jive’s approach to the “magic triangle” of early enterprise 2.0 adoption: IT (technology), HR (people), and Marketing (communication).

As Sam describes on his blog:

Next year I hope to see current vendors and new vendors focused on enterprise issues vs just sexy 2.0 farkme pumps.

Yeah, you get the point here.

June 12th, 2008

"Reliability is a management issue" [podcast]

Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 7:13 am

Categories: Availability and reliability, Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 Conference, Enterprise2conf, Failure 2.0, IT issues, Podcast, SaaS, PaaS, and SOA

Tags: Enterprise 2.0, Podcasts, Cloud Computing, Internet, Michael Krigsman

The Enterprise 2.0 conference currently being held in Boston reminds us that mission-critical web-based applications require high availability. Unfortunately, some enterprise 2.0 application vendors take development shortcuts resulting in poor reliability, which angers users and damages the developer’s credibility.

In  this podcast, I speak with Rod Boothby, fellow Enterprise Irregular and head of platform evangelism for Joyent, a hosting provider for cloud computing. Rod discusses enterprise 2.0 reliability from technical and management perspectives, explaining shortsighted development and architectural decisions that cause cloud computing applications to fail.

If reliability problems with Twitter and other services annoy you, listen to this podcast and hear from an expert.