IT interests : good news but too much compartmentalization

I recently came across this this chart about what IT departments are currently thinking about. What inspires me some thoughts.

First point, as mentioned in the post where I found this document, there’s  nothing really new. Many of these issues have been discussed for years, some are more recent but even when names change, the topics themselves don’t.

Second point : cloud computing is on the top of the list. That’s the evidence, but did we need some more, that the topic is really a true current concern. But we have to be careful and don’t make numbers say what they don’t : being interested in something does not mean adopting it, it even may mean finding arguments to find it. As a friend of mine who works as a plane pilot, often says : “The reason why I’m interested in plane crashes is because I want to avoid them, not because I want to have one”. Behind, nothing emerges (I don’t consider the difference between 47% and 51% as significant).

Third point, the most interesting one in my opinion : the link between many of these topics. BI and BPM : don’t you think that one the the current challenges is to enrich BPM with BI ? Aren’t wikis, blogs etc.. and collaboration tools the two sides of one only thing ? By the way, to enrich BI, isn’t it necessary to harness the value contained into the unstructured information carried by blogs, wikis and social networks ? Good news : social networks come one rank behind. As for content management, isn’t it the formal alter ego of social medias ? Here again, two sides of one global issued.

So, at first sight, there’s a kind of coherence that is a good news. On the other side I’m afraid that all these issues may be thought independantly, without any articulation between one and another just when they must be thought jointly if we don’t want to see things that are complementary by nature confront each other. Keep in mind that operations are expecting such a coherent and integrated approach from the IT depts instead of technological projects isolated the one from the other which lack of coherence have negative impacts on adoption and value creation.

Is Saas the future of your corporate IT ?

This is one more question that haunts many people’s night. More serioulsy, if it doesn’t make people stay awakened all nights long, it creates debates and brings some confusion that doesn’t help businesses to move forward. As a matter of fact deploying any solution is not that easy when one still have many infrastructure related concerns.

So, let’s try to get cleared idead about what’s going on.

Which debate ?

To make it short,  while companies have been used to host their information system on their own infrastructure are facing the emergence of an alternative solution, called Software as a Service, that makes possible to deliver applications through the internet, using services that are not hosted by its IT dept anymore but by external providers. The debate could be simple (I manage everything by myself vs I let others dealing with the issues and I pay for for service) but there are security and privacy concerns that are not trivial. Concerns that are legitimate even if, sometimes, the answer is simple, in a world where old habits have a very heavy weight.

[Read more...]

The future of cloud computing is not necessarily outside the firewall

Discussing wheter companies have to keep their information systemes within their walls or host it, wholly or partly, outside is a central issue.

The Saas or “cloud computing” logic majes sens. The time has come to take away the sacred aura of what,  as Nicholas Carrs  wrote in The Big Switch, is becoming as banal as electricity or running water. Plug, use, unplung. Nothing more. It’s a service like any other and the software + hardware duo is not a sacred cow anymore in people’s life. So why should it be so at the office. Today it’s nothing more than a simple computer and nothing more than software, it’s a part of my everyday life and the only thing that matters is that it does what I expect it to do. I don’t care how it’s done or whether my favorite software is on the net net or on my hard drive. Employee’s computers have shifted from a strategic good to a common consumer good.

[Read more...]

Enterprise 2.0 and SMB. Lets talk about it !

If we refer to the way the isue is often treated, enterprise 2.0 is mainly a large enterprise concern. Does it mean it would be useless for SMBs ? There are very few discussions about that and I took some time to thinks about that.

Here are my first and inevitably incomplete thought. Feel free to add to them.

Enterprise 2.0 is a large businesses concern by nature

I’d even say that enterprise 2.0 was born in large businesses. When we talk about facilitating cross-funtionnal activties across silos, making scattered teams interact more easily, making self coordination and faciliation easier without wasting time and ressources, harnessin expertises and knowledge, it’s easy to understand which kind of patient we face just by looking at the treatment.

More, like many emerging issues, it first drawn the attention of experts and service suppliers who had the possibility to mobilize energy and ressources on a badly defined issue, to invest in future and explore without knowing what it will bring. And we are forced to recognize that prospective is more a large business concerne, one of the reason being the available resources and an inertia that force them to anticipate their moves very, very early.

In short, large businesses are, by nature, the place where this kind of issue emerges and cristalllize, as well it’s, economicially speaking, the only structure that has both the resources and the need to think about a far future.

Are SMBs left out of the debate ?

Some of the reasons given above partly explain that. But other fators have also to be taken into account. The diversity and complexity we encounter within a large organization make it a perfect experimentation field. Morever, large companies like that and adopted pilots and experimentations as a natural way to discover new things. They can afford trying things on small perimeters without puting itself at risk (evenu if the question of the perimeter may become a weakness when a critical mass is needed). SMBs can’t experiment because they often don’t have enough human and financial resources at because its size doesn’t make it possible. The size of a pilot group in a large company is often bigger than many medium businesses size.

Also notice that SMBS used to take advantage from this situation as they let larger ones have all the initial problems and fund a large part of the initla R&D, waiting for things to be more mature to try to catch them at an affordable price.

Whatever, if SMBs are maybe to weak to “push” in the starting stage, the time comes when the offers become more affordable and when they have enough feedbacks not to grope their way along.

SMB can find many benefits in enterprise 2.0 too

That’s not because the enterprise 2.0 issue is perfectly designed for large businesses that smaller businesses have no benefits to expect from that. What is peculiar to SMBs is that they are more focuses on their current business than in the future what explains they are often cautious with all the new things large businesses experiment (and often give up). That’s also the reason why they have much to win by taking the most of limited teams in a context of investment scarcity and makes in order to the time that is spent to grope, adjust, coordinate to meet their business needs would be used to act. Making interactions easier and harnessing knowledge is an issue that doesn’t depend on the company’s size.

Of course SMBs will draw the same benefits as large businesses. I’d even say they would be more important in some cases  : the less people you have at your disposal, the smaller the sum of all individual productivity pools is important, the more the need for collective pools is essential.

Another point, not directly connected, must also be taken into account. If cloud computing is not necessarily the exclusivity of enterprise 2.0, they often come together. Contrary to large businesses who can have justified constraints and where things slowly progress, investing in expensive IT resources is not their calling. The existence of an IT department in many businesses of this kind is more often an unavoidable burden than a real choice and many SMB owners would like to stop spending so much money in infrastructure.

I would even suggest that, if there are benefits large businesses already understood, some of them will appear quickly or would be more important for SMBs.

One concept but different executions ?

Some things may be different for SMBs.

• Perimeter : social networks and commuties will play a different role. Large businesses often focus on internal groups to work or external groups to communicate but seldom mixed ones, gathering suppliers, clients, partners in dedicated zones. SMBs have few resources hand we know how time consuming are the many meetings they must attend in the only purpose of knowing what’s happening. SMBs have a lot to win in maximizing exchanges in groups involving all stakeholders (client/supplier, salesperson, project leader, suppor) in order to minimize the waste due to coordindation and information forwarding. Meetings must be used to decide, to go forward, not to check project statuses : there are other ways to get a comprehensive vision of situation. The less resources you have, the more important it gets to really involve your ecosystem and build synergies by and increased integration.

• IT infrastructure : already mentioned above but this point is resources and cost critical.

• HR : I was recently talking with a famous Business School professor who was telling me that it was a pity that students didn’t pay attention to SMBs except, sometimes, promising startups, although there were many human and businness passionating challenges. Sudies say that using modern tools may help to attract Y gens….

Anything else ?

bénéfices, cloud computing, Entreprise 2.0, PME, réseaux-sociaux

Seen, read, heard this week #2

A new column that will be weekly…or not. Will last..or not. Sometimes I read, hear, see things that are not worth a post but that I feel like sharing like I would do at the cofee machine, around a drink or a lunch…

Seen

• This mindmap of enterprise organization by Richard Menneveux. Ok…it’s in french but the it’s so (sadly) true that it’s worth sharing it for the few french speaking people that may come here
Organisation d'entreprise

Read

“if you spend more time taking care of your team than with your boss, say any promotion goodbye” a Twitt[fr] of my friend Ray Dacteur. Sadly true.

• Don’t even think of hiring away linkedin users, they are happy where they arel. Anyway, linkedIn is become much more than a tool to manage your career.

Entendu

• “Cloud computing is ineluctable. We must learn how this may help providing our users with more value with all these E2.0 tools”. Someone from the IT dept of an (supposed to be old school) biggest french companies.

• “There’s no crisis. Crisis supposes both a sudden dyfunction and the fact we try to restore the previous situation. In the current situation, we must not restore the previous situation but invent something new”. Frederic Dalsace, Social Business Chair incumbent at HEC School of Managementl (Btw, will write more about social business later).

Tools on the cloud for “on the ground” benefits

Retour Mia-cdgEven if cloud computing is not the same thing as social software and enterprise 2.0 et is more about the way tools are delivered  than functionnal classication, it makes interesting shortcuts  in order to remind people of some obvious things that are too often forgotten.

I always repeat that social tools related benefits are not to be searched into the tools but in people’s work which is most of times nothing 2.0 at all, and, at the end, in production. Intangible makes sense only when used jointly with tangible and, even if some people may find it shoking or dream-breaking, when it serves to make real money.

One can do everything in a 2.0 mood, should this buzzword really mean something, but at the end benefits have to be found on the ground, and not on the clouds. In a jumble :

• Politics 2.0 but at the end still counting ballots

• Innovation 2.0 but what matters are the number of new things actually launched or the saved money.

• Training 2.0 but what is important is the way the trainee’s performance is improved

• Marketing 2.0, but even if it’s nice when thousands of people talk about you brand, what matters is to sell more or in a more cost efficient way.

• More generally “work 2.0″ but at then end people mainly care about their pay-slip.

Just the once won’t hurt, I’ll refer to the general public web to end my demontration with the clear-headed Cyrille de Lasteyrie (aka vinvin) who works for Seesmic besides Loïc Le Meur and the keynote he made during last  podcamp Montreal.

Cyrille told the audience that every online acitivities, especially in relation with video contents, are time consumer and that there’s always a point beyond which you have to monetize them, something that only very few people success to do. And he followed with the example of “Bonjour America” .

“Bonjour America” didn’t make him earn anything except people’s esteem, and we all know that’s a currency bankers rarely accept to fill one’s bank overdraft. In the other hand it served as a business card that made other things possible. No one offered him to fund “Bonjour America” on a wider scale by some opportinities were given to him to do other things, more tranditional, but fundable and funded.

It seems to me that it’s an excellent example of many things than happen online in terms of networks or contents production: very few value by themselves but an incredible value when people manage to tranform it “in real life”. They are only levers, but levers that help people making things in the concrete world.

What’s the value of the audience of a blog ? Of a network ? Of all the information that can be found on the web ? Nothing if using it in real life is impossible or has no sense. Huge in the opposite situation. But what will have value will not be the intagible but what will have been done because of it.

In my opinion a similar reflexion can be applied to enterprise 2.0, doesn’t it ?

Even if it’s not the only point he addresses, I advise you to watch the video of his speech (sorry…for once it’s in french)
Live Broadcasting by Ustream

When tools are on the cloud, companies have to make money rain

Cloud computing is the new buzzword, at least untill the next one comes.It’s a reality we can’t ignore, even if it’s more about a question of place than about technology : it’s the place where things happen.

Let me explain. Consider someone who is able to work alone and must work this way. It’s the efficient model that was proposed by Taylor decades ago. No one needs nobody else and has to repeat the same task endlessly. It’s easy, in such a context, to know where things  happens : they happen at the individual’s level and it’s easy to calculte in which proportions each one contributes to value creation. Tools are on the groung, beside the person that operates them without any kind of interpersonal interaction. Everything’s so easy in a perfect world.

But one day the perfect world breaks into pieces. Companies realize than a worker can do nearly nothing on his own, that he has to exchange with others, to things with them. Worse ! They have to innovate, find answers, fix problems togethers. And in order to do that, they’re provided with tools : phone, email, forums, wikis, blogs…

For decades business have ben ran following a cost driven approach, trying to answer these questions : who’s doing what, for whom, how much does it cost, how much does it bring in… I let you answer these questions today. Take also into consideration that the “old” model supposes that each player operates appart from the others and can be evaluated individually, that his performance is not impacted at all by his colleague’s…. Headache in sight…

[Read more...]

Who’s looking for a magik stick on the clouds only gets showers

Sometimes some of my readers, rather than letting a comment or leaving with their doubts, send me questions by email. And among the questions, one comes so often that it desserves a public answer.

Generaly the mail looks that that

“Dear Bertrand

I’m very interesting in all that’s being said about enteprise and web 2.0. As a matter of fact, lack of information sharing, email overload, the fact good ideas never come to the surface are situations we experience everyday and we have to fix them for our company’s wealth. It’s obvious we have to learn to work a little bit differently.

On the other hand it’s hard for me to understand how all these tools, this “cloud computing”, will make my people work differently.

Perhaps you could give me some pieces of advice.

Regards.

xxxxxx”.

First I could start explaining the difference between tools and cloud computing, the second being rather a way to deliver the tools, or saying that enteprises are not the web that…

But what’s important is not there.

[Read more...]

Techno populists come to power at Unilever, GE…and in your company ?

I discovered the term “techno-populist” while reading this businessweek article. This expression, originally due to Forrester, designates people who flout their company’s IT policies in order to use in their professional lives the tools they use in their private life.

Wendy wakes joined Unilever when she was 27. Within the marketing department she quickly experienced the consequences of a very strict IT policy. And the young recruits she works with finds it even harder. As Business week writes, for people born after 1985, the discovering of the corporate world is a real technological shock. Unlike what our generation experienced when the enterprise was a kind of eldorado where we could use state of the art tools and computers we could not have even dreamt of, we have to recognize that the corporate world looks rather like Jurassic Park compared to what I can use in my private life (globally speaking, because I’m very happy with what my company provides me).

The you woman didn’t give up and wrote to her CIO, explaining to which extent people may be more efficient with general public, less prehistoric, and free tools. Six months later she was offered a new job : spreading the use of these tools within unilever.

Unilever now wishes to give its employees more “digital freedom”, allow connection from outside the firewall, use their own PCs provided some security rules are respected. With an identified goal : an increase in productivity and lower costs. Even when they’re not free, the tools in question have pricing models that have nothing to do with what companies have used to know till now.

[Read more...]