Archive

Posts Tagged ‘critique’

The mobile (R)evolution – A historical review

Unless you live in a cave, you will have not failed to notice that mobility has taken over our life. As I write this, I’m sitting in a train full of commuters who, almost to a man, are holding a smart phone, a tablet or a laptop. The odd ones out, are reading a book… on a Kindle.

There is no denying that mobility is an established phenomenon and it’s here to stay. The IT industry is actively embracing it as the new Amalthean horn (alongside that other nebulous revolution – The Cloud). With Mobile First (IBM), The Mobile Imperative (Gartner), Enterprise Mobility(Accenture), 3rd Platform (IDC), etc., etc. .. one by one every major vendor and analyst is releasing their “mobile” strategy that will drive growth in the next 3, 5 or 10 years. And undoubtedly, it will.

But is our current obsession with mobility, really that revolutionary? Is the change in our culture and behaviour really so sudden and dramatic? Prompted by a very stimulating conversation at AIIM’s Executive Leadership Council (see the recent paper: The Mobile Reality), I decided to look at the historical milestones of computer mobility. Its heritage, if you like. The picture it paints is very interesting.

Mobile Evolution

Let’s look at the impact of mobility on a decade by decade basis.

1960

The starting point. Computer access was restricted to a single physical location, determined by the location of the computer machines themselves. Access was granted to few, selected, highly trained computer boffins, who were responsible for allocating the computing resource on a time-share basis, and deliver the results to the outside world. There is zero mobility involved at this stage.

1970

The 70’s introduced the first layer of mobility to the organisation, and it had a transformational impact. “Dumb” terminals, could be distributed across the organisation, connected with RS-232 serial connections. Mobility was location-based, since connectivity was hard-wired and employees would have to physically go to wherever the terminal was, in order to access it. Systems became multi-user giving selected, trained, specialist users simultaneous access to computing power on-demand. Suddenly, computing power and business applications were no longer constrained by the physical location of the computer, but were distributed to core departments across the organisation.

1980

The ‘80s saw the introduction of PCs. A hub-and-spoke revolution, where autonomous business machines could execute tasks locally, wherever they were located, and could communicate transparently with each other and with centralised servers. More “intelligent” connectivity through network cables introduced the client-server and email era. Mobility moved outside the constraints of the physical building. With the advent of “a PC on every desk”, users could work anywhere within the organisation and could communicate with each other, from building to building, and from town to town. Or copy their work on a floppy-disk and continue their work on their PC at home.

1990

In the 90’s mobility went through another revolutionary phase. PCs gave way to laptops, work would be taken anywhere, and modems could allow dial-up connectivity back to the office. Location, for users that had been issued with a company laptop and modem access, was no longer constrained to the confines of the organisation. They could easily work connected from home, or from a customer site anywhere in the world. Mobile phones became a corporate tool, eventually obliterating phonecards and phoneboxes, and wireless handsets, brought telephone mobility within the home. All that mobility created its own cultural revolution, bringing faster on-site customer support, home-working and flexible hours. At the same time, the internet and world-wide-web broke out of the military and academic domains, and the first commercial internet applications started appearing.

2000

With the millennium Y2K scare out of the way, mobility re-invented itself again. Website access and intranets, meant that every employee could access the corporate environment regardless of the physical machine they were using: A corporate notebook, home PC, Internet café, or hotel lobby, would be equally useful for checking emails, writing the odd MS-Office document, or finishing the latest marketing presentation. Virtually every employee had remote access to the organisation, and was actively encouraged to use it to reduce travelling and office-space. Internet commerce became universally accepted transforming the retail market. Computer form factor started reducing, with lighter notebooks and PDAs with styluses, touch screens and hand-writing recognition (remember Palm and Psion?), became the first truly portable devices. Mobile phones penetrated the personal consumer market, while Email and text messaging (SMS) started replacing phone calls, as the preferred mediums for short conversations. ADSL networks brought affordable broadband connectivity to the home, and the first 3G networks and devices allowed internet connection “on the go”.

2010

Which brings us to today: Enter the iPhone and iPad generation, where the preferred device factor is smaller (smartphones), more portable (tablets, phablets) and more universal (Smart TVs, Wifi Cameras, etc). Mobile connectivity became a bit more reliable and a bit faster, using faster 3G and 4G networks on the street. WiFi Fibre optic broadband at home, in fast-food restaurants and at coffee chains, brought faster downloads and HD streaming. Consumers are moving to apps as the preferred interface (rather than websites) and internet access has become accessible to everyone and the preferred customer interaction medium for many businesses. The delineation between personal computing and work computing has more or less disappeared, and the internet (as well as the office) can be accessed almost anywhere and by everyone. SMS text messaging is still prevalent (but virtually instant and virtually free) but asynchronous email communications declined in favour of synchronous Social Network access, Instant messaging (Skype, Twitter, FB Messaging, WhatsApp) or video chats (Skype, Lync, FaceTime, Hangouts).

Ubiquity

But we’re not quite there yet! The much heralded “ubiquitous” access to information, or “24×7” connectivity, is still a myth for a lot of us: While I constantly have to worry if my phone should connect via 3G or WiFi (a cost-driven and availability decision), while I can have internet access on a transatlantic flight, but not in a commuter train, while my broadband signal at home drops the line every 20 minutes because it’s too far away from the telephone exchange, while my WiFi router signal at one end of the house does not reach the dining room at the opposite end, and while I need a 3G signal booster at home (in a 450,000 people town) because none of the mobile networks around me have strong enough signal, mobile connectivity is not “ubiquitous”, it’s laboured.

Having lived and worked through 30 years of mobility transformation, I would argue that today’s “mobile revolution” is more evolutionary than revolutionary. What we are experiencing today is just another step in the right direction. Mobility will continue to have a transformational effect on businesses, consumers and popular culture, just as computer terminals transformed the typical desktop environment in the ‘70s and ‘80s, and as modems enabled home-working and flexible hours in the 90’s and 00’s. I expect that in the next 5 years we will see true “permanently on” connectivity and even more internet enabled devices communicating with each other. I also expect that businesses will become a lot more clever and creative with leveraging mobility.

Nevertheless, I don’t expect a mobile revolution.

So what? Who cares? – The art of being relevant

October 2, 2012 4 comments

When I first joined FileNet, in 2003, all new recruits attended a two-week intensive training course which, for the largest part of it, was a sales skills course. For those of us that were hired in a marketing or technical roles, that part of the course had relatively little relevance other than to empathise with the sellers and as a general skill of communicating with customers.

Nevertheless, everyone took away something extremely useful from the course: A prop! It was a simple piece of card paper (imagine an A4 cut in half lengthwise) which said on one side “So What?” and on the other .”Who Cares?” in bold red letters. The purpose of the card was simple: As we were listening to various roll-playing presentations, we could hold up the cards when the presenter was making irrelevant points or describing product functionality without relating it to the client’s problems. It was a signal to re-think the message and reduce the unnecessary waffle.

So What?” i.e. What is the point you are trying to make? How is this relevant to a business problem? What would the outcome be?

Who Cares?” – i.e. Why is this relevant to the person you are talking to? How does it relate to their work or their own personal targets of ambitions? Who in the organisation feels the pain from the problem that you are trying to resolve? Why should they care?

Surprisingly, nearly ten years later, I still find myself using regularly this simple mental test. Both for my own presentation content as well as when reviewing others’. I find myself applying this principle to presentations, marketing material, website designs and even reviewing customer requirements.  And I often introduce it to conversations with colleagues and with clients. For most of my FileNet colleagues the principle is very clear and familiar, and just mentioning “So what? who cares?” raises a knowing smile and often a review of the task at hand. When introduced to other people, the first response is usually one of shock: “How can you be so rude?”. But a quick explanation makes them realise that I’m not being impertinent, the questions are quite literal and should be answered. And, usually, they take the principle on-board which allows for a much more productive dialog.

Try it for yourself! Next time you are reading a white paper or a marketing brochure or an RFI/RFP/Proposal or even a newspaper article (especially a newspaper article!!), check each of the points made: Do they pass the “So what? Who cares?” test? If not, they are irrelevant waffle and should not be there or they are valid points which should be articulated differently. I promise you, it will make for much clearer, concise and effective communication.

Please speak Human!

<rant on>

A plea to marketers everywhere:

Humans distinguish themselves by their ability to speak and communicate verbally with each other. Please, please, please stop squandering that gift by spewing out inane pointless drivel that means absolutely nothing, just because it fills the pages and sounds impressive. What is the point in asking idiotic questions, which can only ever be answered in one way?

Here is a random sample of phrases & questions that I’ve collected just this week. Names withheld to protect the guilty…

  • Optimise businesses with enhanced business insight from business relevant information
    [What? You mean read the newspaper?]
  • Are the right people involved in the decision-making process in your organisation to foster performance and responsiveness?
    [No, we just pick random people off the street]
  • Are there organisational initiatives that are driving you to become more efficient, improve quality, decrease customer churn, or increase profits?
    [No, our organisation has suicidal tendencies and prints its own money]
  • Do you systematically extract intelligence from your emails?
    [No, we don’t read them, we use them for wallpapering the office walls]

And I would challenge anyone to explain to me what this is about:

  • An information-packed session to get the inside track on maintaining focus and clear leadership in an age of rapid technological change, including some unique insights into the impact that continued convergence will have on your business, your customers and your staff…
    [Huh?? Come again?]

Please, I beg! Life is too short…

<rant off>

Categories: marketing Tags: ,

The Great Big File Box in the sky – help me out here…

October 20, 2011 4 comments

The internet is buzzing with the success stories of Dropbox.com and Box.net. How much they’ve grown, how much they are worth, who’s likely to buy whom, where does iCloud/iPages come into it, etc., etc.

Am I the only one who doesn’t quite get the point here? Yes, I can see how it makes file sharing easier and how it potentially reduces internal IT costs by outsourcing the management of large volumes of information.

How is this ever a good strategy?

We have spent the last 20 years, trying to educate companies on the need to organise their information rather than just dumping in on shared file drives. Classification, version control, metadata, granular security, records management, etc. Anything to convince users to think a little bit further than just “File, Save As” in order to minimise the junk stored on servers, to maximise the chance of finding information when you need it and maintain some sense of auditability in your operations.

So instead of moving forwards, we’re moving backwards! First Sharepoint and now these wonderful cloud services, allow us to shift our junk from our own fileservers to The Great Big File Box in the sky.  With no plan, no structure, no governance, no strategy, no security model, no version control or audit trail.

How is this ever a good idea? I plead ignorance – please help me understand this…

Did anyone go to an “all you can eat” buffet restaurant and not come out feeling bloated??

Systems of Engagement – A bridge too near?

September 29, 2011 Leave a comment

It’s now about a year since AIIM first introduced their study “Systems of Engagement and the future if Enterprise IT” (led by Geoffrey Moore). In this last year I’ve heard this study presented several times and it always resonates with the audience.

However, I believe that the study does not go far enough.

I agree totally that in the last few years we have seen a dramatic shift in the way people interact and communicate and it’s primarily driven through the adoption of social networking and collaboration tools. So the principle of moving to “Systems of Engagement” is sound.

Where I disagree with the study though, is the concept that “Systems of engagement begin with a focus on communications”. That we have moved from managing content to managing interactions. Yes, the new mediums are a lot more interactive and as a result we have more transient content and a higher volume to manage. But fundamentally, this is still describing a system of records, with records encompassing this new type of content.

In my view, what has fundamentally and irrevocably changed is the perception of value. Systems of Engagement no longer derive value from managing information. The focus is on managing Relationships.

  • Relationships between individuals
  • Relationships between people and knowledge domains or communities
  • Relationships between people and information
  • Relationships between information sources – i.e. context
  • Relationships between groups, businesses, communities

What was the primary driver for adoption of tools like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn? connecting people into networks. What will determine the success or failure of Google+? The transition of communities of users from other networks.

In Systems of Engagement, we no longer bookmark the information. We connect with individuals: Friends, Circles, Connections, Followers. We trust the information, because we trust the source. We seek expertise first, and information second. My value, as an individual, is not defined by the documents I’ve written but by my network, my presence and my contribution to the communities I belong.

This applies just as much inside the firewall, as it does outside. Collaborative tools, crowdsourcing, open Q&A, etc. are not driven by sets of captured information, they are driven by connecting the right people to the right tasks and the right communities. By developing relationships.

Yes, as Geoffrey Moore describes in the study, new information is generated through the interaction between individuals. But the new currency in the world of Systems of Engagement is not the snippet of interaction between individuals and the knowledge contained within it. That knowledge is transient and most often obsolete as soon as it is captured.

The new currency today in Systems of Engagement is the Relationship, the connection, the network: Who knows whom? Who knows what? Who do I know? Who knows and follows me?

The Art of the bleeding obvious…

(I better caveat this: Any resemblance to actual organisations or events are entirely coincidental! These are my own opinions and not those of my employers…)

Let me tell you a little story, entirely hypothetical of course:

Analyst: We predict… (great fanfare and drum-roll), that by 2015, 85% of business operations will be done on mobile devices.

Vendor 1: Analysts says we’re going mobile. We better jump the competition. We’re buying a small unknown apps company and make a big song and dance about it.

Vendor 2: The Analyst is predicting and our competitors are buying. While they are sorting out their integration issues we’ll write our own apps which will be better, and we’ll jump the market. Let it be known and let it be so!

Vendor 3: Oops – our competition has a jump on us. Let’s build a cut-down version very quickly with limited functionality and launch to the market before the other ones have a chance. While they are fighting  for big deals to recover their investment, we’ll gain market share.

Analyst: Look, we predicted this will be a hot market and now three vendors are already competing for that space. We better write a review / scope / quadrant / wave for that market. Let’s see: We predict that Vendor 1 was the inovator in the market, Vendor 2 has the strongest offering, Vendor 3 will appeal to the mid-markets.

All together: (gasp of wonder) All hail the Analyst, for they have powers to analyse the market and predict the future so accurately. What is your next epiphany, oh mighty one?

Ok, ok, so it’s a generalisation, it’s irreverent, and I’ve probably insulted every analyst and IT vendor in the process. Is the scenario so far-fetched though?

A while back, when I was working as a consultant, we used to be the butt of many jokes: “The definition of a consultant, is someone who asks you for your watch before they tell you what time it is”.

The next time you read a great new “innovative” press release from a vendor, or analyst for that matter, just look at it more critically: Is it reflecting a business need or is it creating a new one? After 30 years of constant innovation in the software space, why are we still trying to solve the same problems: Reducing operations cost, improving performance, protecting and sharing information? I can count in one hand the innovations that have fundamentally changed business models: Straight-through processing; Supply chain automation; eCommerce; Satellite communications and precious few others. Most other “innovation” is just giving better sharper tools to do the same job. We’re still building the same cabinet, only we’re using electrical routers instead of chisels and planes.

There is nothing wrong with better, faster, cheaper tools of course. That’s progress. But whenever you come across “The next BIG thing” just take a step back and think: is it really that big a leap? Or is it the bleeding obvious next logical step forward, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy?

George

%d bloggers like this: