Here are seven things Microsoft and its partners (or anyone for that matter) can do to build field credibility and grow their UC sales success.
1. Evolve the Language
"VoIP" was a popular term used in the early 2000's but it eventually faded from vocabulary. Then it was resurrected by Microsoft in 2007…why? Consider revising VoIP to "Voice" or "Telephony" as alternative terms when talking about UC.
Referring to things within Microsoft UC stack as "features" undermines the value of the platform. It directs the conversation towards comparing the hundreds of Cisco or Avaya features to dozens of Microsoft features. The Microsoft UC platform is made up of "capabilities" that create business value...not features.
Finally, Cisco is a master of marketing and they do a good job of twisting their competitors marketing messages to use it against them. Such is the case when Microsoft talks about the "desktop". The perception has been created that the desktop is just one of many environments users will work from; suggesting that Microsoft is out-of-date and lacking relevancy in UC. Terms like "workspace" better represent the flexibility of Microsoft UC.
2. Assume Customers Don't Know Anything About OCS
When asked, many prospective customers will tell you they have at least a general understanding of the capabilities of the Microsoft UC platform. The reality is that very few customers have a clear understanding...especially with respect to the Microsoft voice capabilities and strategy. The lesson in this is to assume that NOBODY knows enough about the Microsoft UC story.
3. Voice Pilots are Sales Tools
Voice pilots are important in helping seed the Microsoft UC solution into the market. However, the challenge is that there can be too much focus on selling the voice pilot rather than the solution. The voice pilot has a key role in the sales process - as a tool, not as the final state.
4. Interop is Not a Strategy
Microsoft and Cisco are not UC partners. Both want as much of the $45B UC market as they can get. Interoperability, especially PBX interoperability, is a short term method for introducing Microsoft UC into an existing environment with the ultimate goal of replacing the PBX. Interoperability is the first step towards that end. Customers need to know that Microsoft has no intention of being positioned as a "feature server" add-on to an existing telephony environment.
5. Familiar User Experience = Adoption
Users spend hours each day interacting with Microsoft applications. There is a unique opportunity to accelerate the adoption of Microsoft UC by leveraging the familiar user interface.
6. Microsoft has Greater Business Relevancy and Visibility
Don't over estimate Cisco's relevance with both users and line of business leadership. Cisco dominates the network and IP Telephony but both are often considered commodities. Microsoft has more visibility and business relevance outside of core IT.
7. Surround The Solution to Win
Extend the core Microsoft UC story to include strategic partners like Tandberg, Genesys (with GETS), Aspect and LG/Nortel. Doing so strengthens the competitive position against Cisco and gives implementation partners the opportunity to make more money on both services, software and hardware.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
When a Phone Is Not a Phone
I got an email from my corporate IT guy last week with the subject "OCS Phones". I thought - cool, IT is going to send me one of those Microsoft USB phones to use in my home office. Now I consider myself a pretty progressive guy when it comes to UC technology but I was surprised by what I saw when I opened the email (or perhaps more surprised by my own expectation).
There were no phones to choose from...just headsets to connect to the PC - a bluetooth one and a corded one.
I should have known better. I, of all people, immediately assumed he meant "phone" as in dialpad, handset, craddle, buttons. Old habbits die hard I guess but it got me to thinking...
People have a strange relationship with their desk phone; this love-hate thing that's been going on for years. On one hand, I hear people always complaining about the phone on their desk. It doesn't matter if it's an IP phone or digital or even analog. On the other hand, people can't seem to live without them.
The hate part I can understand. Trust me, in my day I've seen some pretty nasty phones, like the Rolm "deadwood" for example. It had dialtone that sounded like finger nails on a chalkboard! In general, the deskphone takes up extra space; it's corded to the wall; it has an annoying ring; a menacing, flashing light that never seems to stop; it's hard to use any of the features on it (even tranferring a call is brutal). If you're an IT or Telecom professional it's even worse. I can't tell you how many times a budget request for a telephone system upgrade has been denied by a CFO because of the phones...
"Well, do the phones work" asks the CFO.
"Yes, of course they do." answers th IT professional.
"Then what do you need more money for?" retorts the CFO.
Damn those phones!
Then there's the love story - for whatever reason people love their phones. There is some sort of emotional connection that exists. People love the fact that every time they pick up the receiver they hear dial tone; that there is always a voice mail behind the red flashing light; that the phone will always be there for them...even after a nuclear holocaust!
But wait, perhaps I have mistaken love for addiction or fear. Maybe people don't really love their desk telephones...maybe they are just so used to having them that they can't imagine making a call without them! That would explain why, as soon as you suggest that they don't need a physical phone any more, people wig out. "You'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hand" is often the reaction you will hear from such a purpostorous suggestion.
The point to all of this is that Microsoft has a unique story here (in this case, being new to voice is a good thing). For those users that are progressive and want to use the familiar Microsoft interface to make phone calls they can do so easily from their mobile device or PC. For those that still need the comfort of a physical phone to hold on to, there is the USB phone (no power over ethernet required). And for the hard core folks that want a phone corded to the wall Microsoft has the more traditional IP phone.
Me, I am going to let go today. My new phone isn't going to be a phone at all.
There were no phones to choose from...just headsets to connect to the PC - a bluetooth one and a corded one.
I should have known better. I, of all people, immediately assumed he meant "phone" as in dialpad, handset, craddle, buttons. Old habbits die hard I guess but it got me to thinking...
People have a strange relationship with their desk phone; this love-hate thing that's been going on for years. On one hand, I hear people always complaining about the phone on their desk. It doesn't matter if it's an IP phone or digital or even analog. On the other hand, people can't seem to live without them.
The hate part I can understand. Trust me, in my day I've seen some pretty nasty phones, like the Rolm "deadwood" for example. It had dialtone that sounded like finger nails on a chalkboard! In general, the deskphone takes up extra space; it's corded to the wall; it has an annoying ring; a menacing, flashing light that never seems to stop; it's hard to use any of the features on it (even tranferring a call is brutal). If you're an IT or Telecom professional it's even worse. I can't tell you how many times a budget request for a telephone system upgrade has been denied by a CFO because of the phones...
"Well, do the phones work" asks the CFO.
"Yes, of course they do." answers th IT professional.
"Then what do you need more money for?" retorts the CFO.
Damn those phones!
Then there's the love story - for whatever reason people love their phones. There is some sort of emotional connection that exists. People love the fact that every time they pick up the receiver they hear dial tone; that there is always a voice mail behind the red flashing light; that the phone will always be there for them...even after a nuclear holocaust!
But wait, perhaps I have mistaken love for addiction or fear. Maybe people don't really love their desk telephones...maybe they are just so used to having them that they can't imagine making a call without them! That would explain why, as soon as you suggest that they don't need a physical phone any more, people wig out. "You'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hand" is often the reaction you will hear from such a purpostorous suggestion.
The point to all of this is that Microsoft has a unique story here (in this case, being new to voice is a good thing). For those users that are progressive and want to use the familiar Microsoft interface to make phone calls they can do so easily from their mobile device or PC. For those that still need the comfort of a physical phone to hold on to, there is the USB phone (no power over ethernet required). And for the hard core folks that want a phone corded to the wall Microsoft has the more traditional IP phone.
Me, I am going to let go today. My new phone isn't going to be a phone at all.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Solving the Voice Conundrum
The Voice Conundrum: elevating the value of voice (and UC) in the enterprise; from commodity to strategic business asset.
Telephony has been around a long time; over 130 years in fact. The interesting thing is that it initially transformed the way people worked and communicated. I remember back in 1927 (no, I wasn't actually around then) the big news was that you could make a 3 minute call from NY to London, UK for $75. That was a huge event back then even though the submarine cable could literally only handle one call at a time. Unfortunately, not much has changed since then...
Even VoIP turned out to be just another transport conversation - i.e. a less expensive way for people to call between NY and London - but it's never been able to demonstrate sustainable business value.
A little story that epitomizes the “status” of telephony and voice in the enterprise: I was at a hospital for an IP telephony meeting a few years back. It was a crowded day for meetings so we were in a conference room in the lower level of the hospital. During one of the breaks the phone guy wanted to show us the “phone room”. Reluctantly, we obliged and as we headed down the hall we walked past the morgue. The very next door was the phone room. This sent a chill down my spine, so I commented that this was the oddest place I had ever seen a phone room...to which the voice guy replied “You don’t know the half of it son. Sometimes I’ll be in here punching down cables in the bix block and I can hear the bone saw going in the next room.”
Right then and there I realized voice/telephony was at the bottom of the barrel and could never drive business value on its own. Now let's fast forward a few years to the age of unified communications...
So here we are talking about UC and I accused many vendors of commoditizing UC in the same way telephony has been commoditized. The problem, as pointed out in the blog "Presence, not VoIP is the Foundation of Unified Communications" by Zeus Kerravala, The Yankee Group, is that most vendors have been approaching UC as an evolution of voice. As Zeus points out, "it hinders deployments of UC. If, as an industry, we promote UC as a set of tools to be built on VoIP then only companies that have finished their VoIP deployments will really be in a position to deploy UC". Now, considering that the average Cisco VoIP deployment is less than 350 phones, it's going to take them a long time to get to UC (if at all).
Microsoft, was one of the vendors I chastised for commoditizing UC back in my blog in May but I think they may have turned a corner. Thankfully the term VoIP is fading from their vocabulary and they've embraced Zeus' revelation that presence is the foundation for UC...dare I say this is the start of a movement to UC 2.0 (universal collaboration)!
So here is my spin on how I think Microsoft can approach the voice conundrum when talking about their UC vision:
Microsoft Unified Communications approaches voice as one of the many capabilities inherent with UC. They elevate the value of voice/telephony by surrounding it with communications software (like email, IM, presence, web and video conferencing) and drawing it into the workflow and embedding it into business processes.
Admittedly, Microsoft has some ground to make up in providing enterprise-class telephony capabilities (like e911 and branch survivability to PSTN) but that shouldn't stop them from transforming the industry and leading the charge into the next phase of Unified Communications.
Telephony has been around a long time; over 130 years in fact. The interesting thing is that it initially transformed the way people worked and communicated. I remember back in 1927 (no, I wasn't actually around then) the big news was that you could make a 3 minute call from NY to London, UK for $75. That was a huge event back then even though the submarine cable could literally only handle one call at a time. Unfortunately, not much has changed since then...
Even VoIP turned out to be just another transport conversation - i.e. a less expensive way for people to call between NY and London - but it's never been able to demonstrate sustainable business value.
A little story that epitomizes the “status” of telephony and voice in the enterprise: I was at a hospital for an IP telephony meeting a few years back. It was a crowded day for meetings so we were in a conference room in the lower level of the hospital. During one of the breaks the phone guy wanted to show us the “phone room”. Reluctantly, we obliged and as we headed down the hall we walked past the morgue. The very next door was the phone room. This sent a chill down my spine, so I commented that this was the oddest place I had ever seen a phone room...to which the voice guy replied “You don’t know the half of it son. Sometimes I’ll be in here punching down cables in the bix block and I can hear the bone saw going in the next room.”
Right then and there I realized voice/telephony was at the bottom of the barrel and could never drive business value on its own. Now let's fast forward a few years to the age of unified communications...
So here we are talking about UC and I accused many vendors of commoditizing UC in the same way telephony has been commoditized. The problem, as pointed out in the blog "Presence, not VoIP is the Foundation of Unified Communications" by Zeus Kerravala, The Yankee Group, is that most vendors have been approaching UC as an evolution of voice. As Zeus points out, "it hinders deployments of UC. If, as an industry, we promote UC as a set of tools to be built on VoIP then only companies that have finished their VoIP deployments will really be in a position to deploy UC". Now, considering that the average Cisco VoIP deployment is less than 350 phones, it's going to take them a long time to get to UC (if at all).
Microsoft, was one of the vendors I chastised for commoditizing UC back in my blog in May but I think they may have turned a corner. Thankfully the term VoIP is fading from their vocabulary and they've embraced Zeus' revelation that presence is the foundation for UC...dare I say this is the start of a movement to UC 2.0 (universal collaboration)!
So here is my spin on how I think Microsoft can approach the voice conundrum when talking about their UC vision:
Microsoft Unified Communications approaches voice as one of the many capabilities inherent with UC. They elevate the value of voice/telephony by surrounding it with communications software (like email, IM, presence, web and video conferencing) and drawing it into the workflow and embedding it into business processes.
Admittedly, Microsoft has some ground to make up in providing enterprise-class telephony capabilities (like e911 and branch survivability to PSTN) but that shouldn't stop them from transforming the industry and leading the charge into the next phase of Unified Communications.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
A Lot Can Change In 5 Months
After a long break, I am back! it's been 5 months since I last blogged and much has transpired in the world of UC. Cisco bought Jabber and PostPath as well as announced UC System 7 and Webex Connect. Microsoft announced R2 of OCS to close the voice gap on their mission to replace the PBX and grab their share of the estimated $45B UC market.
My last blog was "A Good Buy For Microsoft" in which I suggested that "they could buy Avaya by the end of the summer". Obviously that hasn't happened which further illustrates the flux of the industry at present. I am not so confident that it's going to happen...perhaps because of the economy or because Microsoft decided to do a $40B stock buy back instead of an M&A deal or maybe they don't want the legacy technology.
Regardless, now that Charlie Giancarlo is "filling in" as CEO Avaya one could expect that this is the start of some exciting times over there...if for no other reason than to make themselves more appeaing to prospective buyers. No question TPG and Silverlake still want to sell the company...or at least parts of it so what are we going to see from them in the coming months?
The fact that Charlie is the keynote at VoiceCon in San Francisco next month should tip you off that somethings coming - even without Jim Grubb to help him demo telepresence! What could they be developing that's news worthy? Maybe some announcement around their Ubiquity acquisition from two years ago, but that'd be it. Perhaps its around a partnership with someone like IBM or even RIM (yes, RIM…if you recall RIM acquired Ascendent in 2006 and in a Gartner research document from March/2006 Bern Elliot, Ken Dulaney, and Phillip Redman stated, “Ascendent's software will enable Research in Motion's BlackBerry to connect with PBXs and work like a business phone. This could enable its entry into the mobile unified communications market”). Maybe even a merger announcement - there have been rumors of a private equity buyout of Tandberg by TPG/Silverlake that could result in a merger bween Avaya and Tandberg. If that were the case Charlie could do another telepresence demo - this time with the MOC client and an Avaya PBX backend! Don’t scoff, Cisco even discussed a possible merger between the two during their UC System 7 Launch Webinar in September!
The real question out of all of this is: Does anyone care? I think most people have written Avaya off and look at the $45B UC market as a three horse race between Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco. However, I don't think Avaya is out of it yet. Giancarlo is a great leader and visionary...Avaya still has some of the best products around...and they have a huge customer base. In some way, shape or form Avaya is still going to play a big part in the future of UC - even if it's under someone else's logo.
My last blog was "A Good Buy For Microsoft" in which I suggested that "they could buy Avaya by the end of the summer". Obviously that hasn't happened which further illustrates the flux of the industry at present. I am not so confident that it's going to happen...perhaps because of the economy or because Microsoft decided to do a $40B stock buy back instead of an M&A deal or maybe they don't want the legacy technology.
Regardless, now that Charlie Giancarlo is "filling in" as CEO Avaya one could expect that this is the start of some exciting times over there...if for no other reason than to make themselves more appeaing to prospective buyers. No question TPG and Silverlake still want to sell the company...or at least parts of it so what are we going to see from them in the coming months?
The fact that Charlie is the keynote at VoiceCon in San Francisco next month should tip you off that somethings coming - even without Jim Grubb to help him demo telepresence! What could they be developing that's news worthy? Maybe some announcement around their Ubiquity acquisition from two years ago, but that'd be it. Perhaps its around a partnership with someone like IBM or even RIM (yes, RIM…if you recall RIM acquired Ascendent in 2006 and in a Gartner research document from March/2006 Bern Elliot, Ken Dulaney, and Phillip Redman stated, “Ascendent's software will enable Research in Motion's BlackBerry to connect with PBXs and work like a business phone. This could enable its entry into the mobile unified communications market”). Maybe even a merger announcement - there have been rumors of a private equity buyout of Tandberg by TPG/Silverlake that could result in a merger bween Avaya and Tandberg. If that were the case Charlie could do another telepresence demo - this time with the MOC client and an Avaya PBX backend! Don’t scoff, Cisco even discussed a possible merger between the two during their UC System 7 Launch Webinar in September!
The real question out of all of this is: Does anyone care? I think most people have written Avaya off and look at the $45B UC market as a three horse race between Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco. However, I don't think Avaya is out of it yet. Giancarlo is a great leader and visionary...Avaya still has some of the best products around...and they have a huge customer base. In some way, shape or form Avaya is still going to play a big part in the future of UC - even if it's under someone else's logo.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
A Good Buy For Microsoft?
What could Microsoft do to strengthen their unified communications story? Do they need to or can OCS take them to the promised land? They're already well known as a collaboration and Web 2.0 player and by bolstering their UC position they could dominate the market with a killer value proposition around Universal Collaboration.
Obviously to this point they have been relying on OCS as their UC platform. However, they've changed their go-to-market strategy a couple of times already which suggests they could use some help. Now, they could buy time for the next 2 years, waiting for OCS to mature but I doubt Microsoft, nor their customers have the patience. The other alternative, that seems to becoming more and more likely, is for Microsoft to acquire a more mature UC vendor and take market share inorganically. I would assume now that a Yahoo takeover is off the table, Microsoft has some M&A cash to burn.
On the surface, the most obvious target for a UC acquisition would be Nortel, especially considering they have the ICA agreement in place already. But not so fast...in most people's eyes the ICA has all but disintegrated; Nortel's technology hasn't been exactly cutting edge over the past 4 years and they've had a ton of financial difficulties.
More recently, Microsoft sunk some investment dollars into Aspect so they may be a target. But Aspect would only give them some niche Contact Center applications. That said, they could probably also pick up Interactive Intelligence pretty cheap as well. But I think they are thinking bigger than that...bigger than just contact center.
I believe the biggest bang for Microsoft's buck right now is Avaya. Avaya was purchased last October by the private equity combo of TPG/Silverlake. The leveraged buyout was done for $8B...well below the $45B Microsoft was willing to pay for Yahoo. For the right price, I am sure Charlie Giancarlo and company would be willing to part with their investment. Avaya's appeal comes in several flavors - TPG/Silverlake have spent the last 8+ months getting Avaya into "fighting shape", making it a more efficient operation; Avaya owns significant market share in both Contact Center and UC; Avaya has spent the last 2 years building integrations into many MS apps; Avaya is well positioned going forward to take advantage of advances in SIP, CEBP and cloud computing (with its acquisition of Ubiquity in 2006/07); Avaya has a mature pro services organization; and finally, Microsoft wants to beat Cisco in a real bad way.
The only potential roadblock could be the fact that Google has been rumored to be interested possibly acquiring Avaya as well, having spent "a significant amount of time" at Avaya's HQ in Basking Ridge, NJ lately.
Industry pundits suggest that a Microsoft acquisition of Avaya could happen as early as this summer...turning Microsoft into the undisputed global leader in UC and contact center maketshare over night.
Obviously to this point they have been relying on OCS as their UC platform. However, they've changed their go-to-market strategy a couple of times already which suggests they could use some help. Now, they could buy time for the next 2 years, waiting for OCS to mature but I doubt Microsoft, nor their customers have the patience. The other alternative, that seems to becoming more and more likely, is for Microsoft to acquire a more mature UC vendor and take market share inorganically. I would assume now that a Yahoo takeover is off the table, Microsoft has some M&A cash to burn.
On the surface, the most obvious target for a UC acquisition would be Nortel, especially considering they have the ICA agreement in place already. But not so fast...in most people's eyes the ICA has all but disintegrated; Nortel's technology hasn't been exactly cutting edge over the past 4 years and they've had a ton of financial difficulties.
More recently, Microsoft sunk some investment dollars into Aspect so they may be a target. But Aspect would only give them some niche Contact Center applications. That said, they could probably also pick up Interactive Intelligence pretty cheap as well. But I think they are thinking bigger than that...bigger than just contact center.
I believe the biggest bang for Microsoft's buck right now is Avaya. Avaya was purchased last October by the private equity combo of TPG/Silverlake. The leveraged buyout was done for $8B...well below the $45B Microsoft was willing to pay for Yahoo. For the right price, I am sure Charlie Giancarlo and company would be willing to part with their investment. Avaya's appeal comes in several flavors - TPG/Silverlake have spent the last 8+ months getting Avaya into "fighting shape", making it a more efficient operation; Avaya owns significant market share in both Contact Center and UC; Avaya has spent the last 2 years building integrations into many MS apps; Avaya is well positioned going forward to take advantage of advances in SIP, CEBP and cloud computing (with its acquisition of Ubiquity in 2006/07); Avaya has a mature pro services organization; and finally, Microsoft wants to beat Cisco in a real bad way.
The only potential roadblock could be the fact that Google has been rumored to be interested possibly acquiring Avaya as well, having spent "a significant amount of time" at Avaya's HQ in Basking Ridge, NJ lately.
Industry pundits suggest that a Microsoft acquisition of Avaya could happen as early as this summer...turning Microsoft into the undisputed global leader in UC and contact center maketshare over night.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Software + Services
Software+Services (S+S) combines hosted/on-demand services with local on-premise applications. By bringing together the best of both worlds, you can maximize choice, flexibility and capabilities to enable competitive advantage and drive innovation.
A good place to start this discussion is to make a delineation between S+S and SaaS (Software as a Service). SaaS is a model of software delivery where an application is hosted as a service that customers consume/use across the Internet. By eliminating the need to install and run the application on an enterprise's on-premise network, SaaS alleviates the burden of related maintenance, ongoing operation, and support. Thus SaaS should be considered 1/2 the S+S story (with the other 1/2 being on-premise software applications, managed and maintained directly by IT).
By combining on-demand and on-premise application delivery, organizations can get the best of both worlds. Here's why...some applications make sense to run on the internal network, under the control and supervision of IT. Core applications like call control and voice mail, ERP, desktop O/S, email, network admission control are all examples of the types of apps that would typically reside within an enterprise network; behind the firewall under strict IT control. These types of apps are often defined as hardened core services and usually have an 18-36 month software revision cycle. They are back-end systems with a focus on the "ilities" (i.e. availability, survivability, scalability, reliability, etc.).
On the flip side are a set of emerging user-/customer-centric Web 2.0 software applications. In past blogs we've talked about some of these: workspace apps (i.e. Facebook for the enterprise), IM and presence, collaboration tools, etc. These types of apps represent "Web-paced innovation" as they often come with 3-5 month software revision cycles. Can you imagine the challenge that presents to an IT organization if delivered in-house? Where do you think these apps would fit in the list of project priorities? This is where leveraging a SaaS model makes a ton of sense. Leave it in the cloud and let the service provider worry about keeping things up-to-date. The business reaps all the benefits of the applications and lets IT focus on core service delivery. Additionally, as previously discussed, in order to maximize the effectiveness of workspace applications and presence information, the software needs to be accessible by anyone within the enterprise ecosystem. Thus to create true universal collaboration they need to be able to traverse trust boundaries.
The Bottom Line
The S+S approach enables organizations to easily develop and support applications that provide the kind of experiences that their users and customers are looking for. S+S makes it much simpler to strike a balance between "Web 2.0-style" applications that are built to take advantage of web-paced innovation, and the "foundation" applications designed as core hardened services to deliver reliability, availability and scalability. The bottom line is that S+S enables organizations to drive innovation and build sustainable competitive advantage.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
CEBP: A UC-Business Process “Mash Up”
As discussed previously, as commoditization occurs, UC becomes less capable of providing companies with a competitive advantage…in essence, it loses its business value and becomes a pure IT conversation (our solution uses less boxes than theirs). 
The good news is that we identified one opportunity to elevate the value of UC to a new level - Universal Collaboration – the marrying of UC and Web 2.0 principles.
Now, I’d like to discuss two additional trends that can help organizations realize sustainable business value in adopting a UC strategy…trends that, of course, have close ties to Web 2.0: Software+Services (S+S) and Communications Enabled Business Process (CEBP). This week we’ll focus on CEBP and next week we’ll attack S+S.
In Web 2.0 terms, CEBP can be best described as a UC-business process mash up – combining two distinct business elements to create a super-process; one that is communication-enabled. The goal of CEBP is optimize business process by reducing the human latency that exists within any given process flow. For example, a mortgage approval process may be experience human latency because the person assigned to providing an approval is on vacation or busy working on something else. To reduce this latency, CEBP leverages UC capabilities (i.e. UC services) by embedding them into the business process flow. The result is a more efficient, more automated closed-loop process; translating into significant ROI.
In this example, if the person does not provide the necessary approval within a designated period of time then the business process would invoke a UC service such as “notify and respond” from an IP-PBX, voice portal/IVR, conferencing application, etc. These embedded UC services would “notify” the person that they need to do something. If the person does not “respond” to the notification then it can be escalated to a manager in the same manner.
In fact, there are a number of UC services that could be embedded within a business process to reduce human latency. These could include: conference [on demand], alert, escalate, contact resident expert, etc.; all of which create measurable business value.
The great thing about CEBP is that it can be applied horizontally across different lines of business and different industries. Virtually every business process is hampered by human latency. Some other use cases that CEBP can be applied to include: roadside assistance, stock portfolio alerts, personal information loss, claims processing, inventory management, etc. Here is a more detailed example:
CEBP Claims Processing Use Case Example
Let’s look at a healthcare claims resolution business process. The organization’s goal is to decrease claim close times and improve their closure rate. However, the process is hampered by several inefficiencies - the paperwork process is manually intensive; time-sensitive dependencies on member signatures resulting in significant delays in the approval process.
The CEBP solution is to automate and communications-enable the claims process with embedded UC services like: reminders, alerts, and notifications.
CEBP Modeling Example:
Click image to enlarge
Quantifiable business results include: decreased close times; greater agent/specialist productivity, enabling them to spend more time adjusting claims rather than fielding calls on the claims; increased revenue and member satisfaction/retention.
Many UC vendors claim that they do CEBP today. However, one very important distinction needs to be made…there is a difference between communications integrated into business process and communications enabled business process. For example, ucstrategies.com defines UC as "communications integrated to optimize business processes”. It is person triggered as illustrated in examples like adding a Click-to-Dial function to an ERP or CRM application. As described above, CEBP is much more sophisticated in its ability to automate business process flows; it is usually event triggered, providing a much stronger ROI to many lines of business and vertical industries.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Web 2.0: Federating The Contact Center
[Podcast]
Contact centers are not going to disappear, however, the idea that the contact center is treated as a separate entity from the rest of the enterprise is going away. This week I was asked about what trends I thought were emerging in customer service. I told him I thought Web 2.0 was one of the most relevant trends in this area. Gauging by his reaction, I am pretty sure that wasn't the answer he was expecting. So I set forth to explain my position.
Look at the messaging the major industry players are marketing these days. It's all centered around the idea of extending the ownership of the customer experience to include knowledge workers. The trend is towards a federation of contact center functions and enterprise functions (If some of this sounds familiar, we started this conversation earlier in the year in the blog, Creating a UC Folksonomy. This builds on that initial thought...).
The way some of the vendors are approaching this is by creating greater ties between contact center applications and unified communications. Proof point - Microsoft recently made an equity investment in Aspect (a leading contact center vendor). The press release talked about extending the contact center functions via UC and Microsoft's OCS platform. In fact, Aspect's new marketing slogan is "Unified Communications for the Contact Center". Cisco and Avaya are also taking similar approaches.
However, I think it's going to take more than just UC to accomplish this. Its got to go beyond just connecting with a resident expert who happens to be sitting in a branch office or mobile environment. For end customers to see value in this model it's going to have to involve a highly coordinated, collaborative effort to create sustainable value. This will take two things core to the Universal Collaboration concept (remember that Universal Collaboration=Web 2.0+UC): a connected workspace (per last week's blog) and a strategy that stretches beyond the boundaries of the traditional enterprise. It needs to include an organization's ecosystem (business partners, technology partners, suppliers, contractors and consultants). This goes back to the conversation around traversing trust boundaries/firewalls from a few weeks back...integrating UC capabilities from different corporate domains, federating presence from disparate collaboration platforms, seamlessly integrating on premise and on demand/Saas applications, etc.
A funny little story related to this topic is that in 2003 a colleague and I collaborated on a paper that proposed the idea of using UC to extend the management of customer relationships to the knowledge worker. At the time, senior management thought it was a ridiculous idea that would never catch on, yet here we are and it only took 5 years!
What role do you think Web 2.0 and UC will play in the future of customer service? How will the contact center look in five years?
Contact centers are not going to disappear, however, the idea that the contact center is treated as a separate entity from the rest of the enterprise is going away. This week I was asked about what trends I thought were emerging in customer service. I told him I thought Web 2.0 was one of the most relevant trends in this area. Gauging by his reaction, I am pretty sure that wasn't the answer he was expecting. So I set forth to explain my position.
Look at the messaging the major industry players are marketing these days. It's all centered around the idea of extending the ownership of the customer experience to include knowledge workers. The trend is towards a federation of contact center functions and enterprise functions (If some of this sounds familiar, we started this conversation earlier in the year in the blog, Creating a UC Folksonomy. This builds on that initial thought...).
The way some of the vendors are approaching this is by creating greater ties between contact center applications and unified communications. Proof point - Microsoft recently made an equity investment in Aspect (a leading contact center vendor). The press release talked about extending the contact center functions via UC and Microsoft's OCS platform. In fact, Aspect's new marketing slogan is "Unified Communications for the Contact Center". Cisco and Avaya are also taking similar approaches.
However, I think it's going to take more than just UC to accomplish this. Its got to go beyond just connecting with a resident expert who happens to be sitting in a branch office or mobile environment. For end customers to see value in this model it's going to have to involve a highly coordinated, collaborative effort to create sustainable value. This will take two things core to the Universal Collaboration concept (remember that Universal Collaboration=Web 2.0+UC): a connected workspace (per last week's blog) and a strategy that stretches beyond the boundaries of the traditional enterprise. It needs to include an organization's ecosystem (business partners, technology partners, suppliers, contractors and consultants). This goes back to the conversation around traversing trust boundaries/firewalls from a few weeks back...integrating UC capabilities from different corporate domains, federating presence from disparate collaboration platforms, seamlessly integrating on premise and on demand/Saas applications, etc.
A funny little story related to this topic is that in 2003 a colleague and I collaborated on a paper that proposed the idea of using UC to extend the management of customer relationships to the knowledge worker. At the time, senior management thought it was a ridiculous idea that would never catch on, yet here we are and it only took 5 years!
What role do you think Web 2.0 and UC will play in the future of customer service? How will the contact center look in five years?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The Connected Workspace
[Podcast]
A key component to a cohesive Universal Collaboration (UC + Web 2.0) strategy is the "connected workspace". As cited in the Facebook example a few weeks back, a workspace can be described by four key characteristics that include:
A key component to a cohesive Universal Collaboration (UC + Web 2.0) strategy is the "connected workspace". As cited in the Facebook example a few weeks back, a workspace can be described by four key characteristics that include:
- Usability – an easy-to-use graphical interface that can be customized for each individual user based on context (i.e. project based, team, work habits, relevant information, etc.)
- Accessibility – the ability to access the workspace application from a myriad of devices, operating systems, wired or wireless.
- Participation – a workspace should not be limited to file sharing. Members should have full read/write access to promote discussion, debate and innovation.
- Collaboration – via any device in one-to-one or one-to-many communications. Leverages a full range of unified communication capabilities.
The connected workspace can be built around an individual or a team. In my experience, for the workspace concept to catch on with users, all four of these defining characteristics have got to be present. In the case of an individual workspace, the idea is to provide a user experience that follows the employee across devices, location, networks, etc.
In order to maximize its effectiveness and truly promote Universal Collaboration, workspaces (especially those that are team-based) must also cross trust boundaries, per the last blog topic. This allows all members of a given ecosystem to have full access to all features and functions of the connected workspace including: file sharing, editing, real-time and asynchronous collaboration, and sharing of presences/availability information. One of the key advantages of traversing trust boundaries, which commonly exist between different corporate domains, is the ability to federate presence. Presence federation allows all members of the workspace to view each other's availability regardless of what instant messaging engine/client they are using (Lotus Sametime, Microsoft Office Communicator, Cisco Personal Communicator, AOL, etc.).
The workspace is key component to realizing the business transforming value of Universal Collaboration and Web 2.0 in the enterprise.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Trust Boundaries
[Podcast]
Trust boundaries are a tricky thing when we start talking about Web 2.0 in the workplace. It's not generally an issue within a social context when a group of friends or family members are sharing photo's because everyone involved is using the same application and have been identified as a "trusted friend". However, in the corporate world, not every company is using the same set of applications nor does a common set of trusts exist.
The idea of trust boundaries is constantly evolving. It used to be that a company's trust boundaries were inside the four walls of it's building and anything or anyone external to that was not to be a trusted source to send/receive information. A lot has changed since then.
For example, to improve time-to-market of a new product or application a company will want to improve its collaboration and communication with it's developers. In some cases, these developers may be on contract (and thus part of a different domain) and located in another part of the world. In order to leverage the collaborative power of Web 2.0 to achieve that goal the ability to communicate, collaborate and share information across firewalls must exist.
Looking back to the blog from January 12, 2008 - "Fears About Adopting Web 2.0" - we talked about how, among other things, tools and solutions you adopt should be secure. I think now would be a good time to revise that statement to state that a sustainable Web 2.0 strategy should include "security across trust boundaries".
What are some of your thoughts and comments on this topic? What else do we need to consider relative to trust boundaries? Looking forward to your thoughts.
Trust boundaries are a tricky thing when we start talking about Web 2.0 in the workplace. It's not generally an issue within a social context when a group of friends or family members are sharing photo's because everyone involved is using the same application and have been identified as a "trusted friend". However, in the corporate world, not every company is using the same set of applications nor does a common set of trusts exist.
The idea of trust boundaries is constantly evolving. It used to be that a company's trust boundaries were inside the four walls of it's building and anything or anyone external to that was not to be a trusted source to send/receive information. A lot has changed since then.
- With IP and the ability to create location transparency "trusted" employees have become highly distributed.
- There are growing needs to collaborate with business partners, consultants and suppliers globally.
- Business process outsourcing has extended the employee pool to include contractors and external developers in emerging countries.
- Even merger and acquisitions have changed trust boundaries, where it may take months or years to integrate a newly acquired company but the need to share information seamlessly may be a day one requirement.
For example, to improve time-to-market of a new product or application a company will want to improve its collaboration and communication with it's developers. In some cases, these developers may be on contract (and thus part of a different domain) and located in another part of the world. In order to leverage the collaborative power of Web 2.0 to achieve that goal the ability to communicate, collaborate and share information across firewalls must exist.
Looking back to the blog from January 12, 2008 - "Fears About Adopting Web 2.0" - we talked about how, among other things, tools and solutions you adopt should be secure. I think now would be a good time to revise that statement to state that a sustainable Web 2.0 strategy should include "security across trust boundaries".
What are some of your thoughts and comments on this topic? What else do we need to consider relative to trust boundaries? Looking forward to your thoughts.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Universal Collaboration: The New "UC"
[Podcast]
Unified Communications (UC) has been commoditized. But have no fear, Web 2.0 is enabling the next generation of UC, called Universal Collaboration. Of course, calling it UC 2.0 would be too cliche. Universal Collaboration really captures the essence of both UC and Web 2.0 and the value of bringing them together.
Unified Communications' purpose is to optimize business processes, enhance human communications and eliminate device and media dependencies. Web 2.0 is about using the network to harness the collective intelligence of all the users to drive innovation. When you combine the two and apply it to the workplace you come up with a powerful new value proposition. One that involves the creation of virtual workspaces that enable employees to collaborate using their own customized set of tools, from anywhere - even across firewalls and trust boundaries. A la, Universal Collaboration.
PROOF POINT:
Any idea how many people use Facebook (without looking it up)? 67 million registered members. No lie (I was shocked when I found out). If the Facebook user community was just made up of kids then it would have little relevance in a workplace conversation. But, next time you are in Facebook look up some of the groups that are listed (as a quick sidebar, the largest group is the city of Toronto, Canada which has 1/2 million members. Those Canadians know their Web 2.0!).
Here are some notable workplace groups and number of associated Facebook members:
34,000 IBM employees created their own customized workspace on Facebook. A workspace that is highly accessible, is easy to use, enables participation and of course collaboration with their peers. More impressive is that 34,000 of them self organized to create their own IBM community. No one told them to do it or how to do it. They just did it.
Now, what if you could harness that same collaborative power within your organization? Think of the competitive advantage that could be created. Think about the impact on: innovation; a Six Sigma initiative; a customer service strategy; driving more profit/attorney; speeding a merger and acquisition process.
Universal Collaboration is the next generation of UC, driven by the combination of Unified Communications and Web 2.0.
Unified Communications (UC) has been commoditized. But have no fear, Web 2.0 is enabling the next generation of UC, called Universal Collaboration. Of course, calling it UC 2.0 would be too cliche. Universal Collaboration really captures the essence of both UC and Web 2.0 and the value of bringing them together.
Unified Communications' purpose is to optimize business processes, enhance human communications and eliminate device and media dependencies. Web 2.0 is about using the network to harness the collective intelligence of all the users to drive innovation. When you combine the two and apply it to the workplace you come up with a powerful new value proposition. One that involves the creation of virtual workspaces that enable employees to collaborate using their own customized set of tools, from anywhere - even across firewalls and trust boundaries. A la, Universal Collaboration.
PROOF POINT:
Any idea how many people use Facebook (without looking it up)? 67 million registered members. No lie (I was shocked when I found out). If the Facebook user community was just made up of kids then it would have little relevance in a workplace conversation. But, next time you are in Facebook look up some of the groups that are listed (as a quick sidebar, the largest group is the city of Toronto, Canada which has 1/2 million members. Those Canadians know their Web 2.0!).
Here are some notable workplace groups and number of associated Facebook members:
- IBM - 34,000
- Microsoft - 30,000
- Cisco - 10,500
- P&G - 10,000
- Shell Oil - 7,500
- Wescon Credit Union - 38 (I included them just to show that it's not all about multinationals)
34,000 IBM employees created their own customized workspace on Facebook. A workspace that is highly accessible, is easy to use, enables participation and of course collaboration with their peers. More impressive is that 34,000 of them self organized to create their own IBM community. No one told them to do it or how to do it. They just did it.
Now, what if you could harness that same collaborative power within your organization? Think of the competitive advantage that could be created. Think about the impact on: innovation; a Six Sigma initiative; a customer service strategy; driving more profit/attorney; speeding a merger and acquisition process.
Universal Collaboration is the next generation of UC, driven by the combination of Unified Communications and Web 2.0.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
The Commodization of Unified Communications
[Podcast]
Last week's blog was my first attempt at blogging on the go. I typed it up on my Nokia smartphone while sitting at the skating rink. It was actually pretty easy to upload it directly to my blog site. Kudos to blogger.com for nailing the usability factor!
This week I got to thinking about a relatively new topic, reflecting on where enterprise technology is today and where it's going. Unified Communications (UC) has become such a common way of describing the current evolution of everything from IP telephony to video. When UC really took off in mainstream enterprise discussions it relegated IP Telephony to a commodity-based conversation. To use IP Telephony as a term today sounds so legacy. Now it's all about UC. But is Unified Communications suffering the same fate? Has UC become commoditized? Is it time for a TRANSITION to a new form of UC? I believe the answer is yes to all three.
Consider this - last year Microsoft spent approximately $250M on marketing Unified Communications. This was great for the industry in general but, in my mind, really sealed the fate on UC as a commodity. All the major UC players (traditional and emerging) have had a hand in this - some more than others:
Next week's blog will focus on the next generation of UC and it's tight linkage to Web 2.0. Perhaps in it's next iteration we'll start calling it UC 2.0...or not!
Last week's blog was my first attempt at blogging on the go. I typed it up on my Nokia smartphone while sitting at the skating rink. It was actually pretty easy to upload it directly to my blog site. Kudos to blogger.com for nailing the usability factor!
This week I got to thinking about a relatively new topic, reflecting on where enterprise technology is today and where it's going. Unified Communications (UC) has become such a common way of describing the current evolution of everything from IP telephony to video. When UC really took off in mainstream enterprise discussions it relegated IP Telephony to a commodity-based conversation. To use IP Telephony as a term today sounds so legacy. Now it's all about UC. But is Unified Communications suffering the same fate? Has UC become commoditized? Is it time for a TRANSITION to a new form of UC? I believe the answer is yes to all three.
Consider this - last year Microsoft spent approximately $250M on marketing Unified Communications. This was great for the industry in general but, in my mind, really sealed the fate on UC as a commodity. All the major UC players (traditional and emerging) have had a hand in this - some more than others:
- Microsoft has been positioning it's Unified Messaging solution as "free" and most of their conversations with customers focus on codecs and front-ending existing legacy PBX's (sound familiar?). Also thanks to Microsoft, the term "VoIP" has been revived from the dead and is now being associated with UC.
- Nortel basically gave away the farm to Microsoft in their attempt to stay relevant. Word out of VoiceCon this year is that Microsoft spent more time talking about it's relationship with Avaya than it did about the ICA with Nortel.
- Cisco could be accused of some commoditization of UC as well. If you include call control in the definition of UC, one could argue that they've commoditized UC by embedding so much of it into the network and positioning it as just another network service.
- Google is moving into the enterprise space with their unique "free" business model (though they haven't crossed into UC yet...but they are close with their mobile phone initiatives).
- Avaya - A recent headline I came across reads:
"Avaya banks on recession to push cheap comms kit"
Here's an excerpt from the article, "Avaya has launched a bargain basement version of its unified communications offering which is aimed to appeal to customers worried about the economic downturn."
Next week's blog will focus on the next generation of UC and it's tight linkage to Web 2.0. Perhaps in it's next iteration we'll start calling it UC 2.0...or not!
Saturday, March 22, 2008
A Few Simple Examples
[Podcast]
I thought it would be cool to try posting this week's blog from my mobile phone. Usability and mobility are cornerstone principles of Web 2.0...so let's put them to the test.
But enough preamble, on with the blog! I find it interesting to see the different ways corporations are starting to adopt Web 2.0. The adoption model I've seen is similar to how IM and Blackberry got started. Penetration is happening at the departmental or work group level - below the radar and often out of sight of IT and senior management. This is representative of the viral nature of Web 2.0. With that we are really starting see adoption transcend generations and blur the lines between our social lives and our corporate lives.
An example I've been seeing involves LinkedIn - think of it as facebook for grownups ;o) It is designed to allow professionals to network with other professionals and collegues. Users can even proactively (or by request) provide written recommendations for coworkers or subordinates.
After 7 years with the same company I switched jobs about 8 months ago. I joined LinkedIn as a way to stay in touch with former colleagues. That's just one of the ways people use this Web 2.0 application. I've found that an increasing number of HR professionals use it for recruiting talent. Users can see the job titles of who's looked at their profiles.
I've also started including a link in my email signature to various Web 2.0 applications I use for professional purposes, including this blog, del.icio.us, zoominfo and linkedIn. I have a number of partners, colleagues and customers join my linkedin network because of it.
Zoominfo.com is a great application for researching contacts for customers and partners. Del.icio.us is another cool tool for researching topics and industry articles and information.
These are just a few simple examples of how Web 2.0 is making its way into the corporate world. I encourage you to add your thoughts and comments on this topic (afterall that's what a blog format is all about). Let us know how you are using applications like linkedin, del.icio.us, zoominfo and others.
I thought it would be cool to try posting this week's blog from my mobile phone. Usability and mobility are cornerstone principles of Web 2.0...so let's put them to the test.
But enough preamble, on with the blog! I find it interesting to see the different ways corporations are starting to adopt Web 2.0. The adoption model I've seen is similar to how IM and Blackberry got started. Penetration is happening at the departmental or work group level - below the radar and often out of sight of IT and senior management. This is representative of the viral nature of Web 2.0. With that we are really starting see adoption transcend generations and blur the lines between our social lives and our corporate lives.
An example I've been seeing involves LinkedIn - think of it as facebook for grownups ;o) It is designed to allow professionals to network with other professionals and collegues. Users can even proactively (or by request) provide written recommendations for coworkers or subordinates.
After 7 years with the same company I switched jobs about 8 months ago. I joined LinkedIn as a way to stay in touch with former colleagues. That's just one of the ways people use this Web 2.0 application. I've found that an increasing number of HR professionals use it for recruiting talent. Users can see the job titles of who's looked at their profiles.
I've also started including a link in my email signature to various Web 2.0 applications I use for professional purposes, including this blog, del.icio.us, zoominfo and linkedIn. I have a number of partners, colleagues and customers join my linkedin network because of it.
Zoominfo.com is a great application for researching contacts for customers and partners. Del.icio.us is another cool tool for researching topics and industry articles and information.
These are just a few simple examples of how Web 2.0 is making its way into the corporate world. I encourage you to add your thoughts and comments on this topic (afterall that's what a blog format is all about). Let us know how you are using applications like linkedin, del.icio.us, zoominfo and others.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Emerging Generation Gaps
Recently, my two brothers came to Chicago for a visit. It's always an interesting time when the three of us get together as we are quite the diverse group. I have a bachelor's degree in sociology and am right smack in the middle of Generation X. Now I don't consider myself a typical GenX-type when it comes to technology. I've spent 13 years in technology and have studied Web 2.0 I'm pretty well versed in what's going on (at least from a tech standpoint). Conversely, my brother "the professor", is also part of GenX - but he is an Academic. He has a PhD in ancient philosophy. He doesn't own a cell phone. He doesn't have an iPod (not even a Zune). He doesn't know about blogging, wiki's, etc. He lives in an academe fantasyto be frank.
Then there is my youngest brother, "the student"...born in the mid '80s - a true Millennial/GenY'er. He's a junior in college. If you send him an email or call him you'll never connect with him. Only way to reach him is via IM. Only way to know what he's up to is via Facebook. He watches tv on Youtube, he listens to his music on Pandora. He epitomizes the Web 2.0 generation where his online life and his offline life are really one in the same. He is the polar opposite of my academic brother.
While they were here visiting the student and I started talking about a web application that could transfer music from an iPod to a PC (vs. the normal way iTunes works). The professor asked how it worked and the conversation led to Wikipedia. That's where things got really interesting. As soon as Wikipedia came out of the student's mouth the professor starting freaking out. He was bad mouthing it's credibility and basically said that if any of his students cited Wikipedia as a reference that he would automatically fail them. Of course, this set the student off on how much of a help it is, etc. This led to a LONG debate that drew some very defined lines between the family. The professor's whole point was that information on Wikipedia was not valid because it did not have a formal "peer review" process to validate the information. The student's counterpoint was that, rather than just getting the view point from a few stuffy professors, Wikipedia's wiki-format created a much broader field from which the information was compiled. That's a core principle of Web 2.0 - leveraging the "wisdom of crowds" or "harnessing the collective intelligence".
In my opinion, I think part of the fear shared by the professor and his peers is that Wikipedia, and Web 2.0 in general, challenges the hierarchical foundation that the education system is built on. The notion of flattening the traditional command-and-control model and evolving to a truly collaborative learning environment would destroy academia. In some regards, it's a valid point but if it meant improving a student's propensity to learn doesn't it make sense?!?
From what I understand, this discussion continued on their 9 hour drive back home the next day. A few days later the student went to Wikipedia and looked up "peer review process". This is what he found: Wikipedia Peer Review Process - it's an article that outlines Wikipedia's own peer review process! Of course, he took the opportunity to email the professor the link - destroying the basis of his whole argument. The student has yet to receive a response ;o)
Then there is my youngest brother, "the student"...born in the mid '80s - a true Millennial/GenY'er. He's a junior in college. If you send him an email or call him you'll never connect with him. Only way to reach him is via IM. Only way to know what he's up to is via Facebook. He watches tv on Youtube, he listens to his music on Pandora. He epitomizes the Web 2.0 generation where his online life and his offline life are really one in the same. He is the polar opposite of my academic brother.
While they were here visiting the student and I started talking about a web application that could transfer music from an iPod to a PC (vs. the normal way iTunes works). The professor asked how it worked and the conversation led to Wikipedia. That's where things got really interesting. As soon as Wikipedia came out of the student's mouth the professor starting freaking out. He was bad mouthing it's credibility and basically said that if any of his students cited Wikipedia as a reference that he would automatically fail them. Of course, this set the student off on how much of a help it is, etc. This led to a LONG debate that drew some very defined lines between the family. The professor's whole point was that information on Wikipedia was not valid because it did not have a formal "peer review" process to validate the information. The student's counterpoint was that, rather than just getting the view point from a few stuffy professors, Wikipedia's wiki-format created a much broader field from which the information was compiled. That's a core principle of Web 2.0 - leveraging the "wisdom of crowds" or "harnessing the collective intelligence".
In my opinion, I think part of the fear shared by the professor and his peers is that Wikipedia, and Web 2.0 in general, challenges the hierarchical foundation that the education system is built on. The notion of flattening the traditional command-and-control model and evolving to a truly collaborative learning environment would destroy academia. In some regards, it's a valid point but if it meant improving a student's propensity to learn doesn't it make sense?!?
From what I understand, this discussion continued on their 9 hour drive back home the next day. A few days later the student went to Wikipedia and looked up "peer review process". This is what he found: Wikipedia Peer Review Process - it's an article that outlines Wikipedia's own peer review process! Of course, he took the opportunity to email the professor the link - destroying the basis of his whole argument. The student has yet to receive a response ;o)
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Next-Gen Directory Services
A few weeks back we started to discuss the idea of a "UC Folksonomy" and I said we'd peel back the layers on that concept a bit the following week. Well I got distracted and went off on a couple of side-bar blogs. Fear not, we're back on track - assuming anyone even noticed in the first place...not a single comment to call me out ;O)
Let' press on. How can we tie next-generation directory services into our UC story and leverage as part of the UC Folksonomy?
Next-generation directory services play a very important role in facilitating work-based social networking. These advanced services can be used to create these dynamic, ad hoc teams. Here we can introduce concepts similar to "social book marking" and "tagging". For reference, sites like del.icio.us provide these kinds of Web 2.0 services on the Internet. Instead of book marking a site to store in your browser's Favorites folder, del.icio.us allows you to store them on a centralized website so that you can access them from any browser on any device. Users "tag" sites as a way to categorize or index them. One of the really cool concepts is that any del.icio.us user can view any other user's tag library. That way, if I want to know what sites others are tagging as "Web 2.0" it allows me to LEVERAGE THE COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE OF THE WEB to find more than I could on my own. Try it out for yourself. My tag library is at: http://del.icio.us/boscorob. You can search to see what things I have tagged both socially and for work.
In a corporate context we can leverage the concepts of social book marking and enterprise tagging as next-generation directory services. For example, If we had the ability to "tag" ourselves or even another employee as an expert in a certain field (i.e. competitive, UC, Web 2.0, class action law suits, Six Sigma, etc.) and publish/share that tag via the corporate directory it would make it easy for others to find key resources. In turn, I could easily go to the directory and search on the field of expertise I needed. From there each employee could create customized “expert” lists of their favorite resources in an enterprise IM/presence client. The value could be further exemplified by creating a "locate experts" mashup via Google Maps and the next-gen directory where it would show you the location, availability and communication preference of resources (i.e. how they prefer to be interrupted – via phone, IM, email, video. Sometimes referred to as their “interruptibility”). The idea here is to make it easy for employees to get creative in how they service customers with speed, flexibility and precision…ultimately driving deeper, more profitable customer relationships.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The Next Major Market Transition
2005 marked a defining point in Internet cultural history. That's when the social impact of Web 2.0 really hit critical mass - when there became more user generated content posted than published content. Seems so long ago. Another interesting statistic I came across amplifies this trend. It stated that, if you are an internet user aged 25 or under, more than 60% of the content you access is created by someone you know. Not sure where I read or heard it but it's makes for interesting discussion none-the-less as this is representative of the next generation of workforce.
Generation Y (GenY), Millennials, the Internet Generation (iGen) are all terms for describing the next generation of workers entering the corporate world. GenY is loosely defined as anyone in born as early as 1980 and late as 1995. That would put current age ranges from 13 - 28. It should be noted that within that generation the real "Echo Boom" took place from 1989 - 1993 in which the number of live births in the US exceeded 4 million (the first time since 1964, the end of the post-war "baby boom" years). So what's the significance of all of this sociological data as it relates and the relevance to Web 2.0 in the Enterprise?
Well, Feb. 12th, 2008 also marked a defining point in modern cultural history. It also represents the next major "Market Transition" and the beginning of a shift in corporate power. The very first baby boomer (defined as anyone born between 1946 and 1964) received her first social security retirement benefit. Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, 62, was born at 00:00:01 on 01/01/1946. To put this in perspective - 80 million baby boomers are becoming eligible for Social Security...at a rate of about 10,000 per day!
In corporate context this means that a huge percentage of the workforce is heading towards retirement. So here's my take on both the good news and the challenges for IT and LoB leaders:
GOOD NEWS
The good news is that there are plenty of Generation Y workers to backfill the vacancies that will be created as Gen X employees are promoted to management. As cited on Wikipedia:
"A notable demographic shift should begin to occur in 2011 when the oldest Baby Boomers hit the United States' legal retirement age of 65. As Boomers retire, more members of Generation X will be expected to take roles in middle and upper management and the large membership of Generation Y should take up positions in the lower half of the workforce, a process which may have possibly begun, since some definitions have members of Gen Y in their early 30s."
THE CHALLENGE
The challenge is that the current gap between internet user and knowledge worker is growing. With the emergence of a GenY workforce, coupled with their reliance on Web 2.0 technologies that gap will continue to grow exponentially. There will be more pronounced generational gaps in communications styles within the enterprise. For example - current workers (i.e. baby boomers and GenX'ers) are more accustomed to face-to-face and voice-/emial-based communications. The GenY employee is more technology centric and expects a much richer suite of communication tools to be available including voice, video, IM/chat, and social networking, blogs, etc...
Enterprise Web 2.0 Lesson #3: A disruptive storm is coming over the next 2.5 years as the percentage of Gen Y/Milennial workers increases and Baby Boomer numbers decrease.
Generation Y (GenY), Millennials, the Internet Generation (iGen) are all terms for describing the next generation of workers entering the corporate world. GenY is loosely defined as anyone in born as early as 1980 and late as 1995. That would put current age ranges from 13 - 28. It should be noted that within that generation the real "Echo Boom" took place from 1989 - 1993 in which the number of live births in the US exceeded 4 million (the first time since 1964, the end of the post-war "baby boom" years). So what's the significance of all of this sociological data as it relates and the relevance to Web 2.0 in the Enterprise?
Well, Feb. 12th, 2008 also marked a defining point in modern cultural history. It also represents the next major "Market Transition" and the beginning of a shift in corporate power. The very first baby boomer (defined as anyone born between 1946 and 1964) received her first social security retirement benefit. Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, 62, was born at 00:00:01 on 01/01/1946. To put this in perspective - 80 million baby boomers are becoming eligible for Social Security...at a rate of about 10,000 per day!
In corporate context this means that a huge percentage of the workforce is heading towards retirement. So here's my take on both the good news and the challenges for IT and LoB leaders:
GOOD NEWS
The good news is that there are plenty of Generation Y workers to backfill the vacancies that will be created as Gen X employees are promoted to management. As cited on Wikipedia:
"A notable demographic shift should begin to occur in 2011 when the oldest Baby Boomers hit the United States' legal retirement age of 65. As Boomers retire, more members of Generation X will be expected to take roles in middle and upper management and the large membership of Generation Y should take up positions in the lower half of the workforce, a process which may have possibly begun, since some definitions have members of Gen Y in their early 30s."
THE CHALLENGE
The challenge is that the current gap between internet user and knowledge worker is growing. With the emergence of a GenY workforce, coupled with their reliance on Web 2.0 technologies that gap will continue to grow exponentially. There will be more pronounced generational gaps in communications styles within the enterprise. For example - current workers (i.e. baby boomers and GenX'ers) are more accustomed to face-to-face and voice-/emial-based communications. The GenY employee is more technology centric and expects a much richer suite of communication tools to be available including voice, video, IM/chat, and social networking, blogs, etc...
Enterprise Web 2.0 Lesson #3: A disruptive storm is coming over the next 2.5 years as the percentage of Gen Y/Milennial workers increases and Baby Boomer numbers decrease.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Creating a "UC Folksonomy"
If you recall, a couple of weeks ago we discussed that enterprises should be looking to incorporate Web 2.0 into their core IT strategy and we highlighted four key characteristics to ensure success. Unified Communications delivers in all four areas representing a unique, emerging opportunity. Let's explore a scenario of how to leverage UC and core Web 2.0 principles to drive value while keeping the four characteristics of success in mind.
Example - the typical customer service strategy is based on a legacy call center model. In Web 2.0 terms we can refer to this as a "taxonomy" in that the call center has a predefined set of rules, structure, reports, etc. It is treated as a separate entity from the rest of the organization. It's closed, inflexible in its ability to respond to customer interactions, very impersonal and often extremely frustrating for customers to deal with. Today, customers are demanding more personalized service - "Know who I am and why I'm calling" and that creates the opportunity for competitive differentiation.
By leveraging UC, companies can deliver a much more dynamic customer service experience. Here's how: a company that employs 5000 people may only have 500 (10%) of them designated as call center agents. That means that potentially 90% of the resources are not part of the customer service process. What if you could extend that number from 10% to even 50% of the employees that are actively engaged in serving customers? What value would that bring to both your customers and your organization?
UC does this by leveraging core Web 2.0 principles like: software above the level of single device, leveraging the network as a platform, rich user experience, mobility, video, collaboration, and The Long Tail. We can improve the above example, by leveraging a "UC Folksonomy" - the creation of dynamic, ad-hoc teams across the enterprise to aid in customer interactions. A call center agent could use a "UC Folksonomy" to incorporate "resident experts" (branch, mobile, sales, engineering, etc.) across the business to aid in delivering value to the customer.
The idea that any employee can reach out to the very edge of the enterprise to engage a "resident expert" with context is a very powerful value proposition (i.e. understand their "interruptibility", regardless of their environment, to collaborate and aid in a customer interaction). In a Web2.0 context, UC encourages the creation of these ad hoc teams that self organize with the common goal of servicing customers - without having to rely on the structure/rules of a formal contact center.
Value delivered:
Example - the typical customer service strategy is based on a legacy call center model. In Web 2.0 terms we can refer to this as a "taxonomy" in that the call center has a predefined set of rules, structure, reports, etc. It is treated as a separate entity from the rest of the organization. It's closed, inflexible in its ability to respond to customer interactions, very impersonal and often extremely frustrating for customers to deal with. Today, customers are demanding more personalized service - "Know who I am and why I'm calling" and that creates the opportunity for competitive differentiation.
By leveraging UC, companies can deliver a much more dynamic customer service experience. Here's how: a company that employs 5000 people may only have 500 (10%) of them designated as call center agents. That means that potentially 90% of the resources are not part of the customer service process. What if you could extend that number from 10% to even 50% of the employees that are actively engaged in serving customers? What value would that bring to both your customers and your organization?
UC does this by leveraging core Web 2.0 principles like: software above the level of single device, leveraging the network as a platform, rich user experience, mobility, video, collaboration, and The Long Tail. We can improve the above example, by leveraging a "UC Folksonomy" - the creation of dynamic, ad-hoc teams across the enterprise to aid in customer interactions. A call center agent could use a "UC Folksonomy" to incorporate "resident experts" (branch, mobile, sales, engineering, etc.) across the business to aid in delivering value to the customer.
The idea that any employee can reach out to the very edge of the enterprise to engage a "resident expert" with context is a very powerful value proposition (i.e. understand their "interruptibility", regardless of their environment, to collaborate and aid in a customer interaction). In a Web2.0 context, UC encourages the creation of these ad hoc teams that self organize with the common goal of servicing customers - without having to rely on the structure/rules of a formal contact center.
Value delivered:
- Reduced hold times and abandons
- Reduced call transfers (and associated frustration with having a customer restate their account number, last 4 digits of social, etc.)
- Improved service through collaboration
- Higher first contact resolution
- Measurable return
•
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Enter Unified Communications
A colleague of mine commented on an internal blog I wrote on the same topic of Web 2.0 in the Enterprise. I thought his comments were very insightful and reflected some of what we've talked about in this blog. He said:
"Web 2.0 is about Collaboration. The early phases of Web 2.0 were text driven. However, Collaboration is more powerful when you can add richer elements like voice and video. Web 2.0 in the Enterprise should equal Unified Communications."
Enterprise Web 2.0 Lesson #2: In order to realize the full benefits of Web 2.o in the corporate world you need to look beyond blogs and wiki's. Instead, you need to focus on building your strategy around the set of principles and concepts that Web 2.0 represents.
In fact, Unified Communications (UC) shares a number of core principles with Web 2.0, as illustrated by the "meme map" that was developed at a brainstorming session during FOO Camp in 2005 (a conference at O'Reilly Media). If I were to redraw the meme map for UC it may look something like the following - note that the principles and concepts are the same, UC just puts them in a different context.
To dive a little deeper, here are four examples of Web2.0 principles that are core to Unified Communications:
As you can see, many of the concepts and principles that have helped define Web 2.0 in social-context are applicable to Web 2.0 and UC in the enterprise-context. Next week we'll explore some scenarios that illustrate how UC can leverage core Web 2.0 principles to enhance collaboration and drive value.
"Web 2.0 is about Collaboration. The early phases of Web 2.0 were text driven. However, Collaboration is more powerful when you can add richer elements like voice and video. Web 2.0 in the Enterprise should equal Unified Communications."
Enterprise Web 2.0 Lesson #2: In order to realize the full benefits of Web 2.o in the corporate world you need to look beyond blogs and wiki's. Instead, you need to focus on building your strategy around the set of principles and concepts that Web 2.0 represents.
In fact, Unified Communications (UC) shares a number of core principles with Web 2.0, as illustrated by the "meme map" that was developed at a brainstorming session during FOO Camp in 2005 (a conference at O'Reilly Media). If I were to redraw the meme map for UC it may look something like the following - note that the principles and concepts are the same, UC just puts them in a different context.
click image to enlarge
To dive a little deeper, here are four examples of Web2.0 principles that are core to Unified Communications:
click image to enlarge
As you can see, many of the concepts and principles that have helped define Web 2.0 in social-context are applicable to Web 2.0 and UC in the enterprise-context. Next week we'll explore some scenarios that illustrate how UC can leverage core Web 2.0 principles to enhance collaboration and drive value.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Fears About Adopting Web 2.0
I think we can all agree that Web 2.0 is coming into the Enterprise, whether the organization is ready or not. The power is shifting to the user and Gartner anticipates that "Consumer Technologies Will Drive the Future of Enterprise IT". So, some decisions need to be made by IT - ignore it, try to pull back control, or anticipate user needs and leverage the "user as the employee".
However, we all know it's not that easy. A recent internet posting described the Top 1o Management Fears About Enterprise Web 2.0 and did a great job of capturing both technical and cultural challenges with adoption. To summarize:
Technical Concerns - Security, Access Control, Information Integrity, Proper Tagging, Training
Cultural Concerns -Monitoring, Legal Dangers, Productivity, Information Management, ROI
That's a lot to consider, isn't it? That's why many industry experts believe this is one of the biggest challenges facing the future of IT (as well as a good blogging topic).
Ideally, enterprises should look to incorporate Web 2.o into core IT strategy in such a way that the tools and solutions do four things:
Next week, we'll dive deeper into how to create a strategy that addresses all four requirements. Here's a hint - remember from a couple of weeks ago we established that Web 2.0 = Collaboration. In order to "harness the collective intelligence" of the enterprise we need to build an architecture of participation. That means looking beyond the basics (social networks, blogs and wiki's) and focusing on the principles and concepts of Web 2.0.
However, we all know it's not that easy. A recent internet posting described the Top 1o Management Fears About Enterprise Web 2.0 and did a great job of capturing both technical and cultural challenges with adoption. To summarize:
Technical Concerns - Security, Access Control, Information Integrity, Proper Tagging, Training
Cultural Concerns -Monitoring, Legal Dangers, Productivity, Information Management, ROI
That's a lot to consider, isn't it? That's why many industry experts believe this is one of the biggest challenges facing the future of IT (as well as a good blogging topic).
Ideally, enterprises should look to incorporate Web 2.o into core IT strategy in such a way that the tools and solutions do four things:
- Satisfy user demand for collaboration and participation;
- Allow IT to maintain control;
- Remain secure;
- Demonstrate a measurable return on the investment.
Next week, we'll dive deeper into how to create a strategy that addresses all four requirements. Here's a hint - remember from a couple of weeks ago we established that Web 2.0 = Collaboration. In order to "harness the collective intelligence" of the enterprise we need to build an architecture of participation. That means looking beyond the basics (social networks, blogs and wiki's) and focusing on the principles and concepts of Web 2.0.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
BAM! Web 2.0 Hits the Enterprise Head-on
Social Web 2.0 has hit a critical mass and the interest has become this huge tidal wave. It's impact has spread beyond the under 25 crowd to include all demographics. So much so, that it has become an embedded part of our lives where the distinction between our online lives and our offline lives has become blurred. An often sited example is that when you find something in your attic – traditionally would sell it at a yard/garage sale – today the first inclination is to “sell it on eBay”.
Naturally with Web 2.0 having such a strong impact socially, it's starting to make its way into the enterprise. More and more employees are using consumer tools (such as cell phones and iPods) and personal applications (like Facebook and AOL for IM) as a way to communicate and collaborate with colleagues. The lines between employee and user/consumer are blurring and thus the "user/consumer as the employee" is born - driving the future direction of enterprise IT. Blogs and wiki's are another example of Web 2.0 tools making their way into the enterprise in a rogue fashion, unsanctioned by the line of business or IT. My personal experience has been that there are too many rules and layers of bureaucracy to create a formal corporate blog/wiki. It so much easier to go to a free, web-based service outside the firewall.
This brings us to Enterprise Web 2.0 Lesson #1: Enterprise Web 2.0 is going to happen - with or without IT.
In fact, these rogue activities are not limited to individual knowledge workers. Entire teams and lines of business are acquiring Web 2.0-based tools without IT involvement. According to an article by CIO Insight which cited Forrester Research findings, 25% of non-IT executives directly select tech tools on their own. The reasons are simple: i) IT is often mired in major projects and don't have the bandwidth; ii) business process outsourcing; iii) availability of software as a service (SaaS). The third point is the one I find most interesting (often referred to as the "No CIO needed" model). For example, a VP of Sales wants to implement better sales cadence tools for forecasting and reporting. He/She could go through formal processes of requesting IT to research, put out an RFP and implement a solution over a number of months or years. Or, he/she could look to a SaaS provider like Salesforce.com to provide access to a hosted, web-based service that could be up and running in a matter of days. It shows up as an operational expense vs. a capital investment and and could simply be a line item on an AMEX card.
IT (led by the CIO/CTO) has two options as me move into the era of the user-driven enterprise: 1) Try to pull back control - which will inevitably lead to a standoff between departments and IT-Business leadership which is counterproductive and will more than likely lead to the ousting of a CIO. 2) Anticipate business needs - get ahead of the curve and take solutions to the business users proactively, talk to the users and find out what tools they need to be successful.
As I stated earlier, Web 2.0 is making its way into the enterprise with or without IT. The winds of change are blowing in IT - just like when voice over IP (VoIP) was first introduced. But as we've seen with VoIP, if IT embraces the opportunity, Web 2.0 can drive business transformation, making IT a strategic organization and solidify the CIO's place in the board room.
Next blog we'll talk about some of the management fears about adopting Web 2.0 in the enterprise and what you can do to mitigate those fears while showing measurable returns for the business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
