conferences – Page 69

Enterprise 2.0: Derek Burney

We heard from IBM, so it’s inevitable that we’re going to hear from Microsoft too: namely, Derek Burney, GM of the SharePoint Platform and Tools group. More stuff on how we’re in a new world of work, how technology is changing how and where we interact, but he also touches on the issues of the need to retain and share knowledge as the baby boomers start to retire, and what the incoming MySpace generation is going to demand in terms of functionality on enterprise platforms.

He covers the idea of a busines productivity infrastructure consisting of unified communications, business intelligence, ECM, collaboration (including wikis and blogs) and enterprise search — amazingly, that’s exactly what SharePoint offers 😉 He mentions BPM peripherally as it relates to content approval, but doesn’t cite it explicitly. He does mention “workflow” but that’s really Microsoft’s view of workflow, which is more web service orchestration than what I think of as workflow.

He discusses all the people who might be involved in some way in your organization — employees, partners, customers, and non-affiliated community — and how to better allow collaboration between, not just within, these groups. He directly addressed the concern that many IT (and business) managers have about bringing blogs and wikis inside the corporation, namely a loss of productivity, by showing an example from within Microsoft of how wikis can actually improve productivity, but I think that the Razorfish intranet example that I saw at a recent conference is much more compelling.

The presentation dragged a bit towards the end: I was losing the thread as the slides blurred past, and the guy beside me appeared to nod off. I would like to review his slides if they’re available online; I think that there’s a great deal of good information in there, I just need to dig it out.

Enterprise 2.0: Marthin De Beer

The first session after the morning break is Marthin De Beer of Cisco’s Emerging Markets Technology group, speaking about how video and other Web 2.0 technologies are changing the enterprise. Like many of the speakers that preceded him, a lot of his material is pretty introductory, like explaining how social networking is being used, and what a mashup is. He talks a bit about the social phenomenon of the blending of social and business personas and functions, which I find to be an interesting topic: many young people start out using goofy pseudonyms on the first social networks that they use, but gradually move to having a public persona that includes both personal and business aspects of their life.

Unsurprisingly, he sees user content creation as transforming the very nature of content creation, and is being driven by consumer/home access to products and technologies including highspeed internet access, high-resolution video capture and peer-to-peer sharing. Whether it’s a consumer, business or service provider doing the content creation, it’s like to include some combination of social networking, collaboration and entertainment.

Yikes, more video clips with technical problems, although this one was really just a few-second clip. Ironically, the audio was clipped off at the end, removing the word “all” from the tagline “video shows it all”.

Well, I guess we have to allow him a bit of video, since the main focus of his talk is getting around discussing the role of video in the future of the web in terms of user-created content, but also for tele-presence and surveillance. He sees a place for consumer, prosumer and professional video content; given that almost 100 people have viewed the 9-second YouTube video showing my boyfriend making a Riedel wineglass chime by tapping it against his forehead, I truly believe that there’s room for all types of content out there.

Cisco is in the tele-presence business, and De Beer sees tele-presence as a powerful tool for collaboration, especially when it can be embedded in some of the lower-level networking layers for performance and scalability. Now that we’ve all mastered online collaboration in a text-based manner, video is the next step up.

Enterprise 2.0: Ambuj Goyal

Ambuj Goyal of IBM gave the next keynote on the changes that they’re seeing in organizations, and how this is informing their Enterprise 2.0 directions. Like any established software vendor would do, he started his history lesson around 12 years ago, where presumably vendors like IBM actually invented Enterprise 2.0 but just didn’t think to call it that. All kidding aside, Lotus Notes was a groundbreaking collaboration tool in its time — long before IBM bought Lotus — and likely helped to drive the demand for the ability to collaborate.

He looks at how changes in technology (lighter weight infrastructure and simpler programming models), economics (new business designs that address the long tail) and community (capturing the wisdom of the masses) combine to form Web 2.0, then dug into IBM’s Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0 product offerings.

WebSphere Portal as a mashup platform, with all it’s AJAX-y goodness.
WebSphere Commerce,which is an online shopping platform; after several minutes of trying to get a video showing WebSphere Commerce working — what I feel to be the ultimate cop-out in a presentation — one of Goyal’s colleagues hopped up on stage and narrated the now-silent video.
Web Interface for Content Management. It’s been a few years since I sat down in front of IBM’s Content Manager’s web interface, and I really hope that it’s improved since then, or they’re really stretching it to even mention Web 2.0 and the old CM web interface in the same breath. What ECM really needs is user-generated tagging, which I don’t think that they’re doing yet. Of course, there’s still the outstanding issue of what they’re doing with the FileNet ECM, which I heard was going to become the standard content platform offered by IBM, and likely would have a completely difference web interface.
Info 2.0, which appears to include feed management, tagging and mashups within enterprise-strength security and scalability behind it. This is an early view of products that are coming out later this year, including QEDWiki for creating mashups, which I saw at Mashup Camp last year; unfortunately, we were subjected to another canned video after several technical glitches, but still no audio so we had another live voice-over for the video. Why not just show us a demo? I assume that it may also include some repackaged version of Dogear, their internal enterprise social booking tool; this has been an obvious application for productization, although my suggestion of this to all my IBM friends seemed to fall on deaf ears in the past year.
Lotus Connections — is this a reinvented version of Notes? Goyal refers it to a brand-new product, but I’m not sure why it is trying to leverage the not-very-chi-chi Lotus brand. Apparently, it includes blogging, profiles, bookmarks (maybe this is were Dogear will show up) and ad hoc collaboration.

Unfortunately, IBM seems to be doing its usual trick of having several products that sit over the same space (usually to provide legacy support of existing installations) without a good distinction between them. I’d love to see a roadmap of how all this fits together: which products are intended to provide an upgrade path for legacy products, and which are intended for new installations.

I completely understand that vendors are given space on the speaking platform in exchange for buying big booths at the trade show, but I really rely on the vendors to provide something of value rather than just a cataloguing of their own products. They gain so much more by demonstrating a deep understanding of the concepts and a vision of the future.

Enterprise 2.0: Andrew McAfee keynote

The second keynote was by Andrew McAfee, the Harvard professor who originally coined the term “Enterprise 2.0” only a year ago, speaking on the state of that particular meme. He started off discussing awareness of the meme, which has really taken off in the past year. It involves the use of social software within enterprises, network effects that occur when you can gather contributions from anyone in the organization, and freeform authoring.

He touched on how categorization has moved from strict, professionally-created taxonomies to folksonomies, and the benefits that can result; for example, how the wild, wild west of the unorganized internet has become more categorized and structured over the past years, allowing it to be with library-like precision as required.

He touched briefly on the technology behind Enterprise 2.0, but didn’t have any particular insights in that area: enterprise needs, ease of use, yeah yeah.

He moved on to a discussion on communicating the results of Enterprise 2.0; he thinks that we’re doing a pretty mediocre job of this right now, with people tending to fall back on referring to the same Enterprise 2.0 success stories to try and convince executives to put up the cash to bring this into their organization. He claims that there’s not enough case studies or benchmarks, which is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem: it’s hard to get people to buy without the case studies, but you’re not going to have any successes to develop into case studies if someone doesn’t just take the leap and get started. This, of course, is not unique to Enterprise 2.0: the same happens with any new technology, particularly disruptive technology like Enterprise 2.0 that might threaten both IT and business executives.

McAfee wants to help create a repository of Enterprise 2.0 successes stories (from which he will undoubtedly write a best-selling book 🙂 ), and challenged some vendors to step up and create some sort of wiki-like environment in order to house this.

He finished up by admitting how his own opinions of the value of social networks and the wisdom of the crowds has changed 180 degrees in the past year, from thinking that people who interact mostly online are a bit pathetic, and that the IQ of a crowd is around that of the dumbest person in it, to believing in the power of online social networking, blogging and the like, and recognizing that the collective wisdom of a crowd can be, with the right technology and environment, greater than that of the smartest person in the group.

Enterprise 2.0 Camp: Ryan Coleman

Ryan Coleman, another friend of mine from the TorCamp community, led a discussion on language translation and the impact on the sort of interacting with the global community due to the premise of wikinomics. Although it’s easy (and arrogant) for those of us who are native English speakers to just ignore other languages and pretend that everyone speaks English, the fact is that if you’re message isn’t well-understood, you’ll end up losing business or creating inefficiencies within your organization. At this point, translation services is a $10B business worldwide, and growing.

He gave some examples of evaluating the context and content to determine whether it needs to be translated, and the degree of care that needs to be taken, before going through the different options for translating your business materials.

One option is to crowdsource your documentation: have your user community write the manual for you. This requires a passionate user base, and can be unpredictable in terms of timing and coverage, as well as of inconsistent quality.

Another option is machine translation, but as you’ll know if you’ve ever used Google Translation, the quality can be total crap with low-end solutions. There are high-quality (and higher-priced) professional systems, but these require extensive training and still require review of the output.

Another option is to use internal resources, namely your own staff, who presumably understand your products and services, but who are now diverted from their usual job which tends to create a high cost of lost opportunity. Since these are not professional translators, the quality can also be questionable.

Professional translators are the final option, and best for high-quality, consistent translation. They can use tools to store translated phrases so that there’s a translation memory of a document; when a document changes, only the changed portions required re-translation. The downside, of course, is that this is very expensive, and the initial translations can be time-consuming especially if you have a lot of specialized terminology that the translator needs to learn.

There are a number of hybrid approaches that combine these options; all of them will combine people, process and technology in some proportion, and the ultimate choice will depend on both the content and the context.

Ryan listed a number of other points to consider:

Synchronization between versions, including maintaining dependency relationships
Location and access to content repository
Workflow and time sensitivity of translation, including proofing/review cycle

He had some thoughts on what’s happening between translation systems and content management systems, particularly for large websites that must be maintained in multiple languages. In the past (and likely still a lot currently), a content management system would just spit out a document to be translated, then accept it back in afterwards, without any real sense of how the translated content should be handled. Wikis, of course, are even worse since it’s less mature responsibility and there’s not, in most wikis platforms, any considerations for maintain multi-language versions of a wiki.

Ryan’s company, Clay Tablet, has created a piece of middleware that sits between the different types of translation systems and the content management systems, whether the translation is being done by a machine translation system or a company that provides human translation services.

That’s the end of the formal sessions of Enterprise 2.0 Camp; it’s 2pm and we’re decamping, so to speak, to the bar across the road for lunch and a continuation of the conversations.

Enterprise 2.0 Camp: Mark Kuznicki

My pal Mark Kuznicki is discussing Toronto Transit Camp as a case study on open community innovation that started with the TTC issuing an RFP for a new website and ended up involving the Toronto blogosphere and local transit geeks in an open discussion about what the TTC website should become in order to best serve the community. This all happened in a short time period: the RFP went out in December; the Toronto blogosphere had a call to action on January 1st; two days later Adam Giambrone, the youthful chair of the TTC, signaled that they were open to any ideas generated; within a week Mark and a few others had picked up the flag and started organizing Transit Camp; and Transit Camp happened on February 4th. The way that the Transit Camp organizers communicated this to the TTC is “we’re doing this, and you’re welcome to participate as equals”, although this was likely a bit too radical for the TTC culture since they were more passive listeners than active participants; they’re still pretty hung up on owning their own intellectual property rather than opening up their data and branding for use by the community in some way.

Transit Camp was labelled a “solutions playground” — no complaining allowed — and involved a number of different activities, from BarCamp-type interactive discussions to a design slam, and several TTC execs showed up including Giambrone: a clear indication that TTC was ready to start tapping into the energy and ideas being created in the community. At the end of the day, all parties were seeing the shift from a previous combatitive stance to a collaborative relationship between the TTC and the community, creating an entirely new model for engagement and communication. It resulted in the openTTC.ca open source project, and provided for peer-production involvement in future generations of the website.

Mark uses the term “open creative communities”: barrier-free groups of individuals with a common interest, producing ideas and inventions. He saw a number of factors that contributed to the success of Transit Camp: people attended for both discovery and play; it created an intersection of communities that touch various aspects of TTC and its community; and it gave people like Mark and the other organizers an opportunity to practice community leadership. He had a couple of great references in his presentation, such as Cherkoff and Moore’s CoCreation Rules and Benkler’s commons-based peer-production.

He sees communities as naturally-occurring social systems demonstrating emergent properties, but also points out that you can create an intentional community with the right framework and rules.

Unfortunately, there was no real written record of Transit Camp (obviously, I wasn’t there blogging 🙂 ) so it was difficult to bring the ideas forward in any sort of formal way to the TTC later; this may have impacted their acceptance of the ideas as much as the inherent cultural inertia. However, it’s a great model for allowing a community to engage (particularly) with a government or quasi-government organization. There was a great deal of discussion in today’s session about what would motivate the TTC to get involved in the ideas generated by Transit Camp, particularly those that involved ceding partial control of planning and branding to the community, but a lot of people miss the point of co-creation: remember that the reason that IBM invests in Linux open source development is because it’s way cheaper than developing an equivalent operating system on their own. The real long-term benefit of co-creation is the new possibilities that are generated by including people outside the organization in the innovation process, but it’s often necessary to hook them with the economic arguments first.