Author Archive for Mike Riversdale

What’s the difference between software you WANT to use and the stuff you HAVE to

Published by Mike Riversdale on March 17, 2008 in Business and Design. 0 Comments

(cross posting from MiramarMike, Enterprise 2.0 New Zealand style)

Completely independently these two articles recently applied to some thinking to the subject of “heavy/crap” software being the norm within organisations:

I think their arguments are fundamentally the same … Eric makes it a little more succinctly but there’s depth and reasoning behind Jason’ reporting of the Gartner findings.

Ask yourself the question, “Does it have to be this way?”
If the answer is, “No!” - go fight those that are forcing it upon you, whoever you decide that is.

First here’s Eric’s view

Photobucket

And here’s the Gartner diagram from Jason’s article that may give some answers to the “why”:

Share the love...
[Bloglines] [BlogMarks] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [Sphere] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »

IT Departments - they’re gone but not

Published by Mike Riversdale on March 11, 2008 in Business, IT and Web x.0. 0 Comments

(cross posting from MiramarMike: Enterprise 2.0 New Zealand Style) 

This’ll be my last posting for a while regarding the future of IT Departments as I think I’ve said all I need to say - they’re history!

Wellll, not really. Having spoken to a friend who has a healthy scepticism for all this “new cloud computing” within organisations I do agree with his view that IT Departments are more than just people looking after the networks to store Word documents.

The key split is between the “knowledge worker” and their needs - store, find and use information (at it’s simplest) which is my area of speciality and the bespoke, business differentiator software that some organisations have.

For instance, within a bank they will have a lot of generic office type applications and requirements that I believe can be met much more efficiently, cost effectively and with agility through an Enterprise 2.0 approach.

Also in the bank they have their own banking systems. These systems are probably not (yet) ready for life in the cloud. They have a horde of worker ants (IT Department + business users) caressing them lovingly as they squeeze the most competitive advantage they can out of them. These are the systems that no-one else has (in that particular form).

And to the question of, “What will IT staff do once the users are doing it for themselves?” the answer is focus entirely* upon these core business differentiator systems and make them fly.

When you read the reports outlining the death of the IT Department keep in mind that they are only talking about “knowledge worker” arena where Enterprise 2.0 is focussed … as I write this, that is.

Recent “death of IT” articles:

* not entirely, electricity still has to flow, laptops still need a WiFi to connect to and that pipe connecting the cloud needs to be lovingly cared for (no baddies let in and all the goodies out).

Share the love...
[Bloglines] [BlogMarks] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [Sphere] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »

How close is Google Apps (with Sites) to Microsoft’s SharePoint?

Published by Mike Riversdale on March 3, 2008 in Business. 3 Comments

(cross posting from Mike Riversdale’s “Enterprise 2.0 New Zealand style” blog)

My answer to the question in the title - not very but Google Sites (Apps) is travelling to the same destination as SharePoint but along a very different path.

A little background reading for those new to both Google Apps with Google Site and/or SharePoint.

Google Apps is Google’s web-based collaboration platform.
It is aimed at organisations/groups/teams and brings together its separate applications more commonly used by individuals such as GMail, iGoogle, Chat, Calendar and Docs.
Sites is the newly released application allowing users to create “wiki” sites built upon their JotSpot purchase.

SharePoint is Microsoft’s enterprise-wide collaboration platform.
Last year they release version 2007 (also known as MOSS) that enhanced the usability, more closely tied in with the Office 2007 produces (Word, Excel …) and integrated common ’social software’ type applications such wikis, blogs and limited ’social networking’.

Back to the question.
My experience with both is extensive.

I have clients that have both introduced MOSS and I am at the end of the technological/cultural upgrade of MOSS that has taken (on and off, mostly on) the better part of 6 months).

Google Apps is something I use for my own business and personal documentation.
Google Apps is also the means which my wife runs her Vista Coaching company and I am her “IT Department”

The release of Google Sites is another small step to Google offering a completely web-based collaboration suite/platform. With the release of Google Apps for Teams (review) they are slowly but surely removing the barriers for users (and I mean ‘users’, not ‘IT Departments’) that stand in the way of them being used within organisations.

Google Sites is another piece of the jigsaw.

However it is a rough outline of the piece and by no means a complete piece that will have organisations jumping out of the corporate walls … yet.

For my breakdown of the Google Sites v Microsoft SharePoint 2007

(Google Sites) better than (MOSS):

  • Built on the web and then fundamentally “connected”
    the biggest difference in world view between both the products and probably the company’s delivering them
  • Built from the consumer world view
    therefore “just works” and not “weighty” like SharePoint can seem
  • Easier to get going for starter/basic/intermediate users
  • Integration with Google Accounts (Apps) is complete - Docs, Mail, Calendar, Website etc etc

Worse than:

  • Less customisability (but watch that space, particularly around “Gadgets” ;-)
  • No connections to other corporate information (no “DBC”)
  • Integration with Microsoft Office (particularly 2007) is extremely tight with MOSS
    (a pro or a con really)
  • No formalised records management
  • No work flow - I see this as only a small issue as most people don’t really care/want it

(I am sure I will enhance this list as I gain more insight)

Other views and reviews on the recent Google Sites announcement with comparisons to Microsoft SharePoint:

Share the love...