Use the window below to chat with me (if I'm online ...)
Use the edit nick field above to let me see your name.
cazh1: on Business, Information, and Technology
Thoughts and observations on the intersection of technology and business; searching for better understanding of what's relevant, where's the value, and (always) what's the goal ...
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Opportunistic Insights from the RSS Stream
Opportunistic Insights from the RSS Stream
I've written about using RSS for internal as well as external information sources. This past week, I found a couple of interesting tidbits in my feed reader (behind the firewall) ...
1. Eyes on the Skies: It's that time of year again; oil price volatility will continue if any big storms create problems for refineries in the Gulf - something new to keep an eye on. Never fear - our friends at NOAA kindly put out an RSS feed for storm details - here's the latest graphic on Tropical Storm Arthur, the first of the season. You can keep track of incoming storms using this RSS feed - at the very least, you can be first on your block to know the name of the next storm ...
Some of the responses to this original item pointed out the need to watch the tornado forecast as well put and potential impact on manufacturing plants and/or shipping lanes. There are many different ways that weather can impact the supply chain ...
New applications in the automotive and electronics sectors will drive the growth, although packaging will remain the dominant market. This is despite its share forecast to fall from 65% in 2007 to 40% in 2025.
I took this to mean that packaging is the dominant application of bioplastics, and will remain so. However, the future will see multiple other applications for this material emerge. More applications means larger markets, more innovation in the basic material - which is better for all plastics manufacturers.
3. From Rumor to Fact: One of the project managers recently added (1234) Project XYZ to our PMO database - I found out when the items popped up in my feed reader. That's how it's supposed to work ... Actually, my first reaction to the project was that the description (jpm note: we call it a "mini_charter") was a bit thin. But then I read the first comment, and there's definitely more meat there. At this time, Project XYZ is a multi-headed mystery monster - there are initiatives, teams, projects and such in multiple areas of the company. Clearly, more details to follow - but now we have a validated source of information for at least one of the BU's!
Show vs. Tell
These were my insights for the week, but a number of folks have told me of their own Aha! moments, watching project updates aggregate on their desktop via RSS. I suspect most folks reading this would think little of my "insights" - but that's because we understand how RSS works. To the rest of the world, websites are proactive (I have to go to them) while e-mail inboxes are reactive (the information comes to me). RSS and feed readers turn that paradigm around; once you see it in action, you get it immediately. But it's enough of a phase shift that sometimes explanations and PowerPoints aren't enough. Timely, relevant, in-context examples such as these just click.
posted by James P. MacLennan at 10:42 PM
| Permalink
|
|
Friday, May 09, 2008
The Right Web2.0 Tool for the Audience (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook)
The Right Web2.0 Tool for the Audience (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook)
The volume of Twitter posts popping up in my feed reader is ticking upward, a phenomenon I find interesting because of something I noted recently on LinkedIn. A few weeks ago, a new feature appeared, enabling me to report what I'm working on - Twitter for the office crowd. Always willing to try some flair, I jumped on the bandwagon, and set up a recurring ToDo for updating my LI-net on the day's focus.
meta-tweet
That lasted less than two weeks - some clear (and discouraging) trends had emerged:
Few people in my network were using this feature, and actively noting what we were doing - and it was primarily folks that I know are active bloggers, engaged in the practice of Web 2.0 (and they, too, have trailed off in their LI-tweets)
For the "regular" folks in my network, it was the one activity (daily or twice daily updates) that generated the most inbound comments. I got multiple e-mails, noting that I must be manufacturing additional hours each day.
Without fail, whenever you mention SAP, data warehousing, or any other specific technology, every product sales rep or consulting firm in your network will call that day and offer a$$istance.
I remain a fan of LinkedIn and social networks in general, but my personal jury is still out with Twitter. I think I want it to succeed, but I'm not sure exactly what it can succeed at. The ideas and innovationsarestillcomingin - one of them is sure to make sense to the wider audience, right? In the mean time, I just don't see it catching on in the mainstream enterprise business environment.
I wonder if the gap is generational, or just a different target audience? Much like the difference between Facebook and LinkedIn - is it GenX vs the Millennials, or is it social network versus professional network? Earlier this week, Bernard Lunn weighed in with his compare and contrast post, and observing that both platforms attempt to add Yet Another Messaging Medium to your current array. Dennis McDonald's reply post backs up the notion that there are different audiences in play here - he also has done a deeper dive in Facebook than I have, so if you want a more qualified and detailed comparison, check out Dennis' work.
Or maybe Hugh MacLeod (gapingvoid) has it pegged ...
insightful
Note that Mr. MacLeod is clearly a Twitter fan - maybe he gets this stuff it better than I ...
posted by James P. MacLennan at 9:55 PM
| Permalink
|
|
Thursday, May 01, 2008
RSS: Underappreciated Web 2.0 in the Enterprise
RSS: Underappreciated Web 2.0 in the Enterprise
We added RSS capabilities to our internal PMO systems this past month, and traffic & content is already building up to become a valuable resource. Some have [correctly] noted that this increased visibility puts a bit more pressure on project managers and team members, to keep updating project blogs with pertinent information. This "time shifting" of communication should develop into the most effective way to let the rest of IT know what is happening in all areas.
There are some very interesting threads and conversations going on ... for example:
One Supply Chain systems team informs us of process improvements in product development - nothing to do with IT, but interesting nonetheless
Another team is putting together ideas that will take some significant IT costs out - that's a very active thread
The SAP application team is debating with the Basis team on the merits of a Unicode upgrade - and onlookers from Supply Chain Planning and Data Warehousing are noting dependencies on Unicode in their platforms
These spontaneous, organic, and very impactful "conversations", between people still experimenting with a new technology, show me real potential for spontaneous innovation and idea sharing. More evidence of the value of [judicious] experimentation with new technology - no silver bullet, but just enough spark to start a few fires.
Interested in learning more about RSS? There's lots of good reading out on the Internet ...
Voyage is an imaginative RSS-feader which displays the latest news in the "gravity area". Interesting navigation - I don't think this is practical for internal use, but it sure looks good!
Newsmap translates news feeds and frequeny to a variable bar graph approach.
Universe DayLife is, well, spacey. Translates the universe of news and connections to stars ...
posted by James P. MacLennan at 7:48 PM
| Permalink
|
|
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
No Silver Bullet for Group Collaboration over Distance?
No Silver Bullet for Group Collaboration over Distance?
Lots of organizations have to deal with the challenge of implementing standard work and best practices over physical distances. With sales offices, distribution centers, and manufacturing locations scattered across the country, what's the best way to get people who know their stuff to collaborate on process improvement - and then take that knowledge back to their home office?
While wrestling with this challenge, one executive I know preemptively ruled out videoconferencing. It's a common suggestion, but the general feeling was that it's just not useful, has never proven itself in practice.
I happened to agree with the idea that videoconferencing wouldn't help in this situation. The team was talking about productivity improvements for an assembly process - workstation layout and hands-on participation was required to effectively work out the wasted movements. However, when defending the No Webcams position to some gadget freaks around the table, we came up with a/the fundamental flaw with remote video: it lacks spontaneity.
Historically, videoconferencing was set up in specific rooms that had to be reserved in advance. For higher quality connections, equipment is expensive, and the expense had to be pre-approved. Advances in digital cameras brought devices mounted on desktops, but this tied you to that specific location. Today's nifty notebooks have built-in cameras, but these can be tough to use with a group of people (crowding around).
Yes it's possible to use videoconferencing, but the physical limitations tend to quickly dim the excitement of all but the most diehard tech fans. In practice, local process improvement teams would just walk over to the workstation in question, skull out the best way to do something, and take a break for some coffee by the time we had the webcam hooked up ...
Lack of spontaneity is probably why the vast majority of PowerPoints are delivered with printed decks, and not overhead projectors. It's still more time efficient to quickly print off a few copies than it is to chase down a projector, lug it and your notebook computer into a conference room, get everything hooked together, and try to remember how to switch to the external monitor. (Hmmm, good thing they added all those cool slide transition effects ...)
Truth is, having paper copies isn't all that bad. Some folks like to take notes on their handouts and file them away for future reference. The medium of communication has its own utility, a sort of residual value that most people understand how to use. The same is true for fancy collaborative technology like videoconferencing. The magic is in the actual conversation, but that can get lost in the struggle to get the technology working before you can actually use it.
Does this mean that collaboration technology is doomed to failure? Of course not - knowledge capture and reuse, and differences in physical location and time zones, are still problems for organizations that rely on the "old way of doing things". You just need to pick your tools judiciously, and build up to the fancy stuff over time.
Wiki's will not work if people don't already have an interest / desire / skill / method for creating documentation. Wikis solve distribution and access problems, but they don't make people suddenly want to write.
Blogs will not work if people don't already have the need to communicate while competing for people's attention. Blogs solve time and distance chanllenges and facilitate simple Q&A, but they don't automagically endow authors with reader empathy.
Collaboration Spaces will not work if people don't already have the need to share documents and edit them within a group. Collaboration Spaces solve version control and tracking hassles, but they don't help groups create impactful documents where none existed before.
We needed to see productivity improvements in component assembly within 60 days, so flying a couple of key people around the country was a small price to pay for the quality of work that we got. We took a small step forward - getting process experts to a different location, to put faces to names, and empathize over common challenges, experience the satisfaction of defining a workable solution - and experience the joy of business travel. Maybe next time we could look into videoconferencing, because interpersonal relationships and understanding of the power of shared best practice has already been established.
posted by James P. MacLennan at 10:59 PM
| Permalink
|
|
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Three Dimensions of the Conversation - Millenials and Web 2.0
Three Dimensions of the Conversation - Millenials and Web 2.0
Catching up on some old links - all related to the impact of Web 2.0, and especially the incoming Millennials, on the workplace.
At internetnews, Kuchinskas has laid out a pretty good summary of concerns about the philosophy of information sharing on the public Internet - this doesn't translate well to many corporate environments (see previously). Most of the article frets about the inevitable introduction of malware to the trusted network, but I think the hidden danger is the possibility of sensitive corporate information getting out. Publicly traded companies especially need to be concerned about this; the distinction between copyrighted artistic expression and corporate intelligence may be lost on those fresh out of college.
Via Kottke.org, an interesting concept from Kevin Kelly; folks whose professions have been Turing'd (ie. outsourced via computers / technology advances) are generally more open to working with new technologies. This is a bit contrary to my previous post, and it makes sense - they've already been hit by the train once, and are certainly not going to get hit again. Besides, it's fun to extend the list of theories you never thought could be automated (like real-time driving directions) or eliminated (like newspaper classifieds) ...
... which leads me to this list (from SEOmoz) of things that the Millennials have never seen. Variations on this theme appear almost every year, the kind of world events or social movements that incoming college freshmen have never experienced. Nice to see one that puts the relative pace of technology change in the same perspective.
We're finally seeing corporations like IBM and SAP working to add Web 2.0 and mash-up [clown-suit] capabilities into their major products. Another article calls out some research work that IBM is doing with current college students. I thought it was cool because I did some work like that in my senior year on a project sponsored by IBM. We wrote a virtual disk interface for the IBM 370 (yes, I had a PC XT with a mainframe for a floppy disk ...)
In Computerworld, Thibodeau writes about the introduction of texting into the business world. I have this functionality right now with my Blackberry, and had it in the past running MSN Messenger on the iPAQ - so I know that texting has value to business. However, I don't think you'll get rid of IM for the folks still working at the desktop. I validated this with my teenage daughters - they favor texting because they're not in front of the computer as much as they are walking about with a phone in their pocket. However, I do note that my oldest prefers texting even when she's surfing the web in between social engagements. At best, there will be a nice mix of these styles, and hopefully we'll see e-mail traffic (and useless attachments, Reply All, and unmanageable inboxes) fade away.
There was a recent Q&A thread from LinkedIn Answers on the general topic of managing the Millennials - a representative sample of the three dimensions the topic encompasses:
posted by James P. MacLennan at 1:43 PM
| Permalink
|
|
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
The Innovation Generation and User Interfaces
The Innovation Generation and User Interfaces
I don't intend for allmyposts about Millennials joining the workforce to be anti-youth. There are some significantly good things this new generation can bring to established organizations - ways of thinking that foster innovation and forward-progress in how organizations use information.
For example, let's talk about user interfaces (UI). I'm not an old man, but I remember the advent of IBM's Common User Access standard. DOS-based computers and early GUIs introduced UI variety, and the resulting lack of consistency took part of the blame for systems that were hard to learn (and therefore hard to use). CUA promised consistency, greater productivity and information effectiveness.
Fast forward to the modern Internet era, and it's clear that "common user access" is no longer a baseline requirement for effective use of information. Cutting edge web sites pride themselves on their innovative, engaging, and unique front ends. Every website you see is different, yet it doesn't take people much time to figure out how to order a book on Amazon, browse for peripherals at CDW, or bid on stuff on eBay. These are mainstream Internet users I'm talking about; the tech-savvy are just the ones coming up with a new and different clown suits** for the same old services.
**And by 'clown-suit' I mean 'innovative dynamic XMLSocket/AHAH/AJAX-based exploitative web 2.0 social mashup,' of course. (props to findmemp3)
However ... isn't it interesting that those mainstream Internet users, productively surfing at home, are the same folks in your office complaining about difficult-to-use ERP systems? In this world, UI consistency is not an issue (okay, except when an acquisition is folded inelegantly into another framework). The challenge is with system designers and developers that lack an understanding of what makes a user interface effective and engaging - something that most longtime corporate system developers have never really been trained in.
Not that the newbies (sorry, Millenials) coming in to our IT departments automatically know how to design an effective interface - they are just more open to it, and they understand it better when they see it. Admittedly, "I know it when I see it" is hard to describe and extremely hard to train. However, now I must link to one of the few presentations I've ever been able to get a lot out of without having the presenter present to me ...
Now, I certainly can't explain Kano Modeling and the more theoretical stuff, but it really starts to click on slide 15 when he showed a hierarchy of needs for user interaction. The slides lay out basic ideas that resonate, and terrific examples that you can recognize from your daily travels through the Internet. These applications speak to you, not at you, and make the act of using them a pleasurable experience. Simple stuff like conversational error / warning / guidance messages, effective use of pictures and words, and the value of "less is more".
I think a critical differentiator between an application accessible via the public Internet and the typical internal, corporate application is a fundamental assumption [on the Internet] that you cannot hold your user's hand through the process. The information presented, and the user's experience, has to stand on its own - because it is impossible to know who, when, and where your stuff is going to be used. This raises the bar for usability and scalability, but it's a great model to emulate for internal development in this lean economy.
So how do you make the jump between internally-focused developer and externally-savvy innovator? I'd start with Anderson's presentation - see if it "speaks to you". I think you'll either get it (and your mind will open up), or not (and you need to burn a few hundred hours surfing websites and experiencing the difference).
posted by James P. MacLennan at 11:29 PM
| Permalink
|
|
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Why are those Old Programmers so slow in picking up on the Intarweb?
Why are those Old Programmers so slow in picking up on the Intarweb?
A significant difference between us old-line IT coders and the new graduates is the variety of our platforms and tools. I'm not talking about the large number of languages and tools learned over the course of a career - we all have a healthy collection of certifications and acronyms peppering the bottoms of our resumes. I'm talking about the amazing array of stuff required to get development done on a single project, "right now".
Over the past few weeks, I've been doing a little development at work. This is my idea of fun - in between the PowerPoints and project status meetings, I try to sneak in a little hack or two. Actually, I'm not doing the heavy lifting on this one; I'm working with one of the guys on my team, and we're putting together some ASP code to generate RSS feeds from the SQL database we use to track our projects. He's done most of the raw research and the base coding, I'm just prettying up the final package.
As a department, we're moving towards Microsoft as a strategic platform, but we're certainly not there yet - so this is definitely a skunkworks-type project. For this "fun stuff", we're using technologies that will plug nicely into our general strategic direction, but at this point there are no standard toolsets or integrated development environments in broad use.
So, to get the job done this afternoon, I've been cycling through the following ...
In window #1, editing the .ASP file with Crimson; source files are sitting on the development server
In window #2, testing code using IE ... no integrated debug environment for my ASP syntax, but I manage (just a little trickery - switches flip between RSS and HTML output)
This is just debugging the basic code - to validate the RSS XML, I View Source from IE (opening window #3) and cut and paste into the W3C validator (window #4)
For the SQL queries and database hacking, I've got window #5 for Enterprise Manager and #6 for Query Analyzer
After debugging, I push to the test server manually, using File Explorer in windows #7 and #8
Everything looks great, so I switch to window #9, which has another chunk of ASP that generates custom URLs for the RSS feed (we've added selectivity, aren't we crafty?)
For the final test, I have RSS Bandit open in window #10. I create multiple new feed URLs (#9) and add to the Bandit config, to see what I get
If I made a syntax error in the RSS (missed something between #4 and here), I have to flip back to window #1 to clean it up
Oops, almost forgot ... like any good coder, I've got TFMs open, but it's not just one manual- window #11 is my multi-tabbed Firefox, Googling all sorts of sites to get references for RSS, ASP, and SQL
Sounds crazy, I know. I could/should go out and get Visual Studio or something. But like I said, we're not fully in production in this Microsoft development environment. We're innovating, right?
I've done open source development on my own in the past, and it's much the same thing - multiple different platforms, tools, and languages. For example, when working on my own site, I'm fixing configuration files and writing code in HTML, CSS, PHP, and mySQL. To get things working, I'm dealing with the configuration files for Apache, Eclipse, PHP, and mySQL. Edits in Eclipse and Crimson, pushing around source with FTP, fighting firewalls and routers, developing in Windows while production is in Unix.
This madhouse of multiple tools, languages, and platforms probably sounds quite normal - if you've been working heavy with open source and/or Web 2.0 for a few years. But imagine presenting this to legacy IT folks, working in their version controlled, standardized environments. The typical "road to the future" brings five new technologies, three new IDEs, and one or two basic system architectures that are all very different from tried and true.
Does this mean you can't teach an old dog new tricks? Not at all - most are quite anxious to learn, and have done so continuously over the years. However, this is all starting to feel like the first time we switched from procedural languages (COBOL, RPG, Pascal, Fortran) to OO and event-driven stuff (Visual Basic, PowerBuilder, SQLWindows). We went from offense to defense, from being controlling and orchestrating to reacting and trapping. Not that it was bad or wrong - just different.
Does this mean the experienced coder is washed up, and has nothing to contribute? Ask the folks in Big Pharma, having dealt with the FDA and validated systems. Ask the folks working with Finance in public companies, having dealt with SarbOx. Healthcare and HIPAA. Retail and RFID. Not to mention having to debug a lot of other people's code, and knowing when to step through or just refactor.
Running to the future, juggling multiple multilingual windows, and demonstrated facility with the newest tools is all good, but it's just one of many attributes that determine who on your team is worth 50 others. Have a little patience ...
posted by James P. MacLennan at 12:13 AM
| Permalink
|
|
Friday, April 04, 2008
Branching Out: Writing for the FEI Blog
Branching Out: Writing for the FEI Blog
Yet another interesting way that the Internet has broadened my connections and collaborations ...
After connecting over LinkedIn and exchanging common interests via e-mail and blog post, the fine folks over at The Front End of Innovation blog asked me to do some posting there as well. They have a different posting style - shorter, a bit more volume than I can generate, and definitely focused on innovation (I know that I wander across many different areas of IT and business). However, I've got a series of post ideas I'm working on in the area of "innovation" - defintely a buzzword for 2008. I should easily be able to cross-post between the two.
Be sure to check out the other authors at FEI - interesting stuff, definitely worth adding to your blog roll!
posted by James P. MacLennan at 9:55 PM
| Permalink
|
|
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
The Innovation Generation - Communication Styles
The Innovation Generation - Communication Styles
There've been many articles in recent weeks about the tech-savvy Millennials and their impact on future work. I concede, even welcome the changes that business will need to introduce in response to these new expectations, but I don't see the massive change that some writers seem to think is inevitable. The world will not change to accommodate the Millennials, but relevant and effective new working styles will definitely be adopted where they make business sense.
I will certainly agree that communication styles will change. For example, there will be a greater reliance on (and expectations of) instant and ubiquitous connections - with people, information and technology. IM is already on the way out, and texting is the way to go; my high-school-aged daughters think nothing of racking up thousands of text mails every month.
Unfortunately, this kind of freewheeling message content is going to run headlong into the litigious real-world. Many companies are still struggling over records retention standards and expectations. Public companies will need to maintain some control over messages that could contain proprietary or inside information. Corporate survival and protection from liability are clearly not on the minds of students as they post embarrassing pictures on Facebook pages, and even adults get trapped by unfortunate text messages that come back to haunt them.
Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge believer in alternative messaging styles and flexible collaboration. I've managed and/or participated on multiple "collaborative" teams - people from different companies, zip codes, time zones and countries. Separation by time and space has been a business challenge for years, but you could set up a shared FTP folder, or swap e-mails about projects, as long as I've been working. The teams that succeeded understood the differences between working across the hall and working across town, and moderated their communication styles accordingly, using the best tools available.
The value the Millennials bring is a de facto openness to collaboration tools. To them it's not something new that they need to learn; they expect the rest of us to already be there. Their rude awakening will come when they need to invest some change management time getting us "old folks" to catch up to their fast twitch messaging style; they won't be able to pass us by because we've got the organizational and process knowledge. (that's why we're on the team, right?)
posted by James P. MacLennan at 9:38 PM
| Permalink
|
|
Monday, March 10, 2008
Success, Failure, and Insights after 12 Months of Internal Web 2.0
Success, Failure, and Insights after 12 Months of Internal Web 2.0
Different areas of our IT department are using internal blogs, wikis, and collaboration spaces, with varying degrees of participation, readership, and success. Some observations:
Blogging is Easy ...
The blogs and wiki(s) have effectively removed the hassles of capturing and distributing information quickly. One important early decision was to not implement an editorial approval process for the wiki, and most blogs are wide open for public comments. No more excuses or complaints about a lack of documentation; if the explanation is not clear, or needs examples to make it relevant to multiple situations - all are fully empowered to fix it.
Some find the blog to be an easier way of communicating because of the "immediacy" - a sudden insight or pithy observation pops in your head, so you jump on the blog and capture the thought. These are the folks that have had a little insight, and gone beyond the idea of blogs as just an electronic replacement for a weekly status report. It might be difficult if you feel an obligation to say something every day - but if you really understand what you can and should be writing about, you'll probably make multiple entries every day.
... but Empathizing (with the reader) is Difficult
I still get pushback on the blogs - even among the groups that are currently our "best demonstrated practitioners". These folks are generating a decent amount of participation and content - but still not quite enough stuff to be effective. The challenge, it seems, is to get folks to empathize with the reader - a skill that I'm surprised more folks don't have, because many like to complain about what they don't know, or should know, or wish they knew.
Always ask yourself, what did I do or learn today that others would find interesting? No, it's not that the world wants to understand how my day went, or how I'm feeling. But I like to hear when people are starting (or stopping!) projects, or attending meetings and learning about events or decisions that may have an impact on my my work over the next three months. Empathize with your [potential] readers, anticipate their interest, and practice what I call the "beneficial assumption" ...
Most people think the same way I do ...
... so I will anticipate what I'd like to hear about my organization, my projects, and my meetings ...
... and write about that
Self-Policing the Content
What about stuff that [possibly] doesn't belong in a blog - even though it's internal? Key thing is to use common sense; the blog entry is just as permanent, and much more public, than an e-mail. Especially when it comes to "negative events'; sometimes the specifics aren't really relevant and don't add much value. Specifics, like somebody made a fat-finger mistake and deleted some data, or opened a hole in the firewall, or copied the wrong file. A blog is typically not a root-cause, problem analysis tool ... it's a general FYI platform, and specifics (especially the negative ones) moght be taken out of context by the readers.
Of course, we note that content should not be limited to all that is sweetness and light. There's nothing wrong with fact-based bad news, but there's a lot wrong with bad news that no one finds out about and then gets worse, or no one learns from. We don't write about this stuff to get folks in trouble, but we definitely do it to prepare, inform and educate.
Communicating is Still an Art
Some folks will rattle on in too much detail, while others are too terse. The fundamental challenge - most folks can write acceptably, but may feel they can't write well - they lack the confidence to capture it on paper. Confidence is something that comes with practice, but mandating participation is not going to encourage spontaneous composition.
Where Are the Comments?
Some folks surprise themselves with a good blog entry, and then become doubly surprised when then get no comments. Bloggers in a closed community / internal blog can't judge themsleves based on numbers and responses that you mgiht see on the Internet - heck, it's taken me two years to get up to about 50 subscribers to my feed [feel free to subscribe, dear reader!].
posted by James P. MacLennan at 9:04 PM
| Permalink
|
|
Monday, March 03, 2008
The Best Way to get Web 2.0 Into the Enterprise
The Best Way to get Web 2.0 Into the Enterprise
There are a few ideas circulating in the blogosphere as to what will bring Web 2.0 into the enterprise, including ...
The Influx of the Millennials; recent college graduates who have come to expect social networking, instant messaging and collaboration via the cloud. This groundswell of pressure will force IT to implement these new technologies.
Consumer High-Tech; populist technologies like Apple hardware and Google's suite of software has taken hold in our homes; folks who expect interoperability with their employer's network will create the demand.
The Innovation Imperative; apparently, the only way for IT to demonstrate relevance and appear innovative is to slap Ajax and some pastel colors into their enterprise projects.
I suppose these things will start some conversations, but there are entrenched forces within the business that are tough to overcome -
The Millenials will be in the minority, with low positions on the corporate totem pole, for a few years still. There is still a critical mass of folks who only know how to communicate / collaborate via e
