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:

• 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.

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.

• 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.

Today, there is no blanket statement as to where trust boundaries exist. It varies by company, by project, even by day. I even had one customer this past week tell me that their trust boundaries extend into space (they work with the space station)! The ability to traverse trust boundaries or firewalls is a key component to a successful Web 2.0 strategy. To achieve a state of true Universal Collaboration, where an organization can leverage any resource in its ecosystem to participate in a value added activity, you must be able to go across trust boundaries.

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.

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:

• 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)
  

Also consider that the professional networking site LinkedIn (what I fondly refer to as Facebook for grown-ups) has 20 million members. Now let that all sink in and think about it for a minute...

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.

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:

• 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."

The Avaya article mentions a cost of $0.15 /user/day...to be fair it also references a Cisco UC offering of $0.32 /user/day (to my point earlier). Regardless, it's clear to me that something has to change. Unified Communications, as we know it today, is on it's way to becoming the next legacy technology just like its predecessors - IP Telephony, VoIP, and Digital TDM and Analog.

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!

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.

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)

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.