I’ve been playing on twitter a bit recently – I find it quite an interesting little tool: quicker and easier than blogging and nuanced differently from e-mail.
A recent development which to put it bluntly, does my head in, is geo-location. It seems a flash new startup (with about as much chance of building a monetizable business as my left big toe) brightkite offers a geo-location twitter mashup.
One user in particular (and as tempting as it is I’ll not name them) seems to delight in sending positional updates every five minutes. Now call me a sceptic but I have two thoughts here;
If he were truly famous, he’d be trying to hide and remain incognito
If he’s not it’s akin to walking around with a sandwich board saying “paparazzi come here”
The saying that comes to mind (not really analogous but you’ll get the drift) is “don’t be modest, you’re not that good”, come on guys attention seeking is just sooooo 1.0
So as my contribution to the high-level conversation that is twitter geo-location, here follows a recent exchange between me and Julian;
benkepes why the frig do some on twitter insist on sending their location every 5 minutes – trying to gain a following or something? 12 minutes ago from twhirl
A new McKinsey report just released documents the paradigm shift evident in corporate IT. The survey canvassed 850 corporate software buyers and shows just how much attention on-demand is gaining in their minds.
Key takeaways;
SaaS is rapidly becoming mainstream
75% are favourably disposed to utilising SaaS for development and deployment
around 20% of this years software budget to be spent on SaaS (higher % for smaller businesses and lower for larger as expected)
McKinsey says the move to web apps creates an ascendency of platforms and splits these platforms into three distinct categories;
development platforms (bungee labs, coghead etc etc)
delivery platforms (EC2, S3 etc)
app led platforms (force.com, intuit’s new offering)
Truth is that the survey doesn’t tell us anything new, corporate IT however is reluctant to jump into something without existing support and traction, this survey will ease their fears about SaaS/PaaS and most likely accelerate the trend.
Zoho announced this morning that it is the first on-demand application to support VB macros and pivot tables. While I, like Zoli, use about 5% of the functionality that MS excel offers, it’s obvious that this development means more than what it appears.
Zoho could – and I emphasize could – become the bones of a reporting and analysis engine for the many finance applications that are starting to emerge… Accounting data serves many purposes and right now, the emphasis is on user specific requirements. That’s fine except we should never forget that regulatory purposes need attention. If Zoho can become a reporting engine then it means someone, somewhere can make a very nice living by providing that service.
The translation is that Zoh provides all the analytics and reporting tols that are jurisdiction non-specific, it’s then easy for individual vendors in discrete jurisdictions to mash that up with their own individual regualtions to create a localised accouting solution.
So my take is that two major things have come from this release;
Zoho has shown itself to be a SaaS player than can deliver what the other big boys are unable or unwilling to
Once again we see debunked another claimed impediment to the delivery of high level accounting functionality
Check out this interesting article. Some interesting takeaways;
SaaS means faster time to market and a more business centric cost model that allows for closer aligning of IT costs to business impact
some companies deploy a SaaS solution as an interim solution for a problem and then ultimately end up keeping the SaaS solution after being pleased with the value
what is outsourced in SaaS is merely “grunt work that should have been done by the vendor”
I’d argue that all these points come from the perspective of SaaS as a cost saving substitute and not a value-adding one but the article is itneresting nonetheless.
With all the attention of late that PaaS providers are getting, it seems a good time to reflect on the stark contrast between two types of SaaS provider: those who do their own infrastructure, and those who farm it out.
Everyone knows that salesforce.com is the grandaddy of SaaS vendors, and it has gone down the only path that was open to it when it was conceived, that of creating and hosting its own infrastructure. As the somewhat acidic FSJ commented;
Benioff, ironically, has built his business around a bloated, overly expensive, outdated business model, a model that comes straight out of the late Nineties — he’s running his own data center, and he’s using Sun servers and Oracle software. It’s like “Back to the Future.” Meanwhile the rest of the world has leapt ahead onto Intel architecture and Linux. For Benioff to survive into the era of the cloud he’ll have to rip up his entire architecture and rebuild it. Yeah. It’s like that. He’s stuck. And he knows it. He’s not doing cloud computing. He’s doing what we all already recognize was a precursor to the cloud.
Already the CEO of SaaS vendor Sonian Networks uses the term “Legacy SaaS” to refer to those player of old who actual do their own hosting and serving.
I think it’s too early to entirely discount the self-hosting strategy, but it does seem, with ubiquitous, scalable and economically priced PaaS solutions now available from a number of vendors, that proprietary infrastructure will go the way of greenscreens.
A post over on ZDNet that included this estimated price for hosting a CRM type app on BungeeConnect;
At $3.60 per month it would seem something of a no-brainer to avoid the hassle, scaling issues and non-core business removal of focus that self provided infrastructure would cause.
Astute readers will know, or have worked out, that I’m involved in a couple of projects that seek to build communities of interest. I really believe in the power of the network and the efficiency to be gained by creating a place where individuals, joined by a common interest, can meet. That interest can be social, technological, vocational or whatever, it matters not.
One of the examples I hold up as a shining light to community building is Geekzone. Geekzone has created a locale where like minded people (admittedly early adopter techy types who are a sure bet to “do stuff” online) can meet, discuss, create forums, ask questions etc etc etc. Mauricio (founder of Geekzone) deserves mountains of praise for what he has achieved.
Anyway, a post over on Web Worker Daily absolutely resonated with me, it discusses some “rules” for online communities. Some of the points raised really hit the mark and I thought I’d repost them here;
You can’t own a community. A lot of people who start and build communities immediately assume ownership. They get lawyers to craft a Terms of Service that says that they own everything posted within a community. They set the rules in stone and police the community. While I understand why companies want to “protect their assets,” ultimately, online communities can be fickle and rebellious. They do not want to be owned. Trying to turn a community into a commodity is ultimately a recipe for failure.
This is a fantastic point – witness those who have failed trying to be a proprietary community. Online communities need to be Switzerland, neutral and open in word and deed. So many large organisation try to build communities as a shallow attempt to quickly and directly lead to sales. This ploy is pretty obviously false – the communities that succeed are those that encourage dialogue, even when it challenges the views of those supporting it. It’s interesting to note the number of high level executives from New Zealand Telcos who spend time on Geekzone – sometimes the discussions there challenge them but better to be challenged and know what the market thinks than to exist with a “head buried in the sand” attitude.
Every community needs leadership. I know some people will debate me on this point but I don’t think a community can survive without some person in a leadership role. They don’t have to be “boss,” they don’t have to be “dictator,” however, there is usually one person who initiates a community and is the driving force behind that community. The community leadership could consist of several people, but leading by committee can bog down a community’s growth. At the end of the day, the buck must stop with someone.
I agree entirely – Mauricio, whether you call him ambassador or figurehead or whatever of Geekzone, is front and centre as the leader in terms of direction and strategy. Similarly Richard McManus over on ReadWriteWeb.
A community dies if it is all about you. Often a community grows around a single person but that is really more “Cult of Personality” if the community continues to revolve around that person. Many blogs are activated by Cult of Personality. Successful bloggers nurture their comments sections so those who comment get the spotlight as well. Online communities may need a leader but they should not be reliant solely on a single person to survive. When that person goes, what happens to the community?
Again both Gekkzone and RWW are examples of communities where it’s not necessarily about the figurehead. One runs a fine line between lack of direction and too much control. Online communities have a lifecycle and they reach a point at which they can be cut loose from their figurehead somewhat.
Community building is not all about the tools. But the right tools do help. These days, the right community building tools seem to be social networking features (friends), blogs or microblogging features, and even SMS features so the community conversation gets carried onto your mobile device. Bells and whistles don’t make an online community, but as people get used to using new networking and communications, they’ll come to expect them in the platform where they choose to start a community
It’s all about the solution – Geekzone is kind of plain in execution, but it serves a purpose and that build it’s following. Many communities are heavy on features but light on delivering users wants and needs.
The entire article really struck a chord with me, especially after a couple of discussions with people over the last couple of days who similarly appreciate the value of community.
Enterprise 2.0 is “Web 2.0″ within the organisation
SaaS? “Software as a Service”
1 – SaaS is thin to the max.
Software as a Service (SaaS) is software delivered via the browser (or some such “online client”) following the following basic rules of playing:
There is no software to install on the machine you’re using
There should be no assumptions made about what type of machine you’re using
There can be no expectation that the machine you’re using can store anything more than is required to facilitate the current session
I believe this is a return to the ‘good’ old days of dumb green screen terminals – just quicker, prettier and much glossier. I was gonna say ‘easier’ and ‘friendlier’ but hey, you can’t compare eras in sport and you probably can’t in computing and I remember my terminal doing me just fine at the time.
Oh, and another phrase you’ll oft hear is ‘thin client’.
So, it’s software that requires a server somewhere to run all the bits and bobs.
2 – Web 2.0 is SaaS PLUS the Internet
So what’s the difference between SaaS and Web 2.0? In my view it is the addition of “connectivity” to the mix.
Web 2.0 is software running on servers out there and serving up applications usually via a browser – that’s SaaS. But Web 2.0 goes beyond living on the interconnections of the Internet from birth. The apps are built to use the sharing of information (to and from), the sharing of software (open source and the use of APIs) and the sharing of people.
The finest place to share is on the Internet – that’s why Web 2.0 can only live on the Internet. The Internet/Web 2.0 is (currently) imbued with a spirit of openness – it demands that we share and when we don’t it gets all uppity and sulks. When Napster was told it couldn’t share it withered in the Internet environment.
BTW, sharing does not equal a free for all, but it does demand that you explicitly explain and code the reasons for not sharing from the moment someone uses you.
To allow this sharing the conceptual walls around Web 2.0 applications are much more fluid and permeable. If you think of these “walls” then an SaaS application isn’t really that different to a PC installed one. They don’t really share themselves. And there are times when I am perfectly happy with that – I am glad Xero is a SaaS product and not Web 2.0, who wants the finances of your company being shared? Although, in this creative environment maybe the boundary will blur … who knows.
Web 2.0 also has a community feeling about it, a definite sense of wanting to play with others and, as Nat Torkington so memorably said (about Flickr), “You can feel the humanity front and centre”. I believe that is because all good Web 2.0 products work with connections of people (in Flickrs world it’s through the media of photos) because the people delivering them know that we don’t live in walled gardens.
3 – Enterprise 2.0 is “Web 2.0″ within the organisation
And if we now agree that Web 2.0 is more than just SaaS you can see how Enterprise 2.0 can have a dramatic affect on an organisation, especially those that believe they live in walled/closed environments. Of course no organisation really does exist in such a manner unless the staff are chipped in the neck on their first day and then monitored and controlled 24/7 … anyone work in such a place?
But don’t forget the fundamental environment that Web 2.0 lives within – the Internet.
This isn’t software taken from the Internet and installed within the organisation.
Taking MediaWiki, the software the runs Wikipedia, and installing it on your company network will not give you Wikipedia or anything like it. It’s a different environment.
There are, therefore, two types of Enterprise 2.0:
Using Web 2.0
Using Web 2.0 software
They come with very different emotions, issues, challenges and approaches.
I suspect that most organisations (and certainly those here in New Zealand) only think about the second option and that’s fine. However, do people also consider that removing the software from its environment can be akin to taking a fish out of water – without the Internet have you considered the following?
An interesting article this morning calling for more Diversity in corporate boards (actually it called for more diversity but I couldn’t help plug Diversity Ltd’s governance experience!).
I’ve had a bit to do with the pool of professional directors in New Zealand and I have to say I came away a little unimpressed. I’m sure the pool is useful for legacy industries (the sort of low value add commodity stuff that we’re all meant to be moving away from), but I can’t help but think that they’re in a little over their heads when it comes to hi-growth, hi-tech companies.
I’ve heard all the arguments that say that the most important thing is having experience with growth (no matter what the domain) ad the connections of well regarded directors are valuable but I’m not so sure;
Most companies with independent boards in New Zealand are slow growth, legacy businesses – I’m not sure how that translates into fast moving experience
especially for hi-tech businesses, connections are less important than product and scale – sure experience can help with execution but most non-executive directors that I know are reluctant to be so involved as to have a real hand in operational execution
I’m 100% in favour of independent boards for small and larger businesses, but believe that the current pool of candidates doesn’t inspire confidence in those considering appointing a board.
![[Bloglines]](http://diversity.net.nz/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/bloglines.png)
![[BlogMarks]](http://diversity.net.nz/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/blogmarks.png)
![[del.icio.us]](http://diversity.net.nz/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://diversity.net.nz/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://diversity.net.nz/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://diversity.net.nz/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[Reddit]](http://diversity.net.nz/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[Slashdot]](http://diversity.net.nz/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/slashdot.png)
![[Sphere]](http://diversity.net.nz/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://diversity.net.nz/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://diversity.net.nz/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://diversity.net.nz/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://diversity.net.nz/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Loading ...
