by Bill Ives
October 27, 2010 at 3:48 am · Filed under
IT Department, IT Market, Information Management
Forrester has released its report, US And Global IT Market Outlook: Q3 2010, by Andrew Bartels with Christopher Mines and Chétina Muteba. They have reduced their forecasts for the year to a still positive 8.1% IT market growth for the US (down from our 9.9% forecast in July), with 7.4% growth predicted for in 2011. Forrester used data from the US Department of Commerce and the reports of 53 vendors. US business and government purchases of Communications and IT products and services will total $758 billion dollars in 2010.
Breaking down the details shows a divers range across sectors within IT. For example, US computer equipment is set to raise by 19% in 2010, with all categories growing at double-digit rates. US software purchases should rise by 9.1%, with operating system software, middleware, and applications sharing the growth. Communications equipment raise by only by 5.5%, led by enterprise and small and medium-size business (SMB) buying.
On the other hand, IT services growth will lag a bit, with systems integration projects picking up late in 2010 as licensed software buying increases. The laggard of the group is US IT outsourcing and telecommunications services. Sales here will lag, with the former rising by only 2.8% and the latter dropping by 0.9% in 2010.
I was pleased to get a review copy of the forecast and there is a lot more detail with the report.
by Paula Thornton
October 25, 2010 at 3:54 pm · Filed under
2.0 Design Thinking, Enterprise 2.0
I don’t own an iphone or an ipad. I nearly caused a familial meltdown years ago, rejecting my husband’s carefully selected birthday gift: a video ipod. Spending over 3 decades in the corporate world — particularly in IT where anything Apple has been (until more recently) an exception — I’ve just never had a desire to own anything Apple (I will admit to being turned into a ‘movie jukebox’ junkie by the AppleTV unit at my daughter’s house). This seems contradictory to my other purchasing decisions, which are mainly driven by good design criteria (especially cars). But I can and do respect the mind of Steve Jobs.
Reading through the transcript of an interview with former Apple CEO John Scully, I found many critical E2.0-relevant messages from Steve.
While understanding an individual is relevant to design, asking them what they want or think of something new might not be (circle back to the issues with requirements):
“How can I possibly ask somebody what a graphics-based computer ought to be when they have no idea what a graphic based computer is? No one has ever seen one before.”
Steve effectively suggests that the gap between where things are and where they need to be next is often too large for people to traverse in their minds. One of the challenges with E2.0 is that it presents a gap that too many cannot bridge. Until they are immersed in a context-relevant scenario, the value will never be evident. That doesn’t mean immersing them in just any scenario — it has to be ‘their’ scenario.
Scully noted that he and Steve found common ground not through technology but through industrial design — in the beauty and function of a thing.
“Here’s someone who starts with the user experience, who believes that industrial design shouldn’t be compared to what other people were doing with technology products but it should be compared to people were doing with jewelry.”
All those failing E2.0 projects, just how many UX resources were on those initiatives? There are some great E2.0 technologies out there. Most of them have major design issues. If the count of developers to design staff is not approaching 1to1, you may want to rethink your efforts. When you rely on technologists to design results, you miss adding the rich perspectives of other design disciplines — like jewelry, or commercial building, or landscaping.
Other quotes, taken out of context, reinforce this:
“you’re starting at the wrong end of the value chain. You are not starting with the components. You are starting with the user experience.
……The user experience is taken all the way from the experience of using the product, to the advertising of how it is presented, to the design of the product.”
I’d suggest that one of the biggest challenges for all IT output, not just E2.0, is that they’ve always started at the wrong end of the value chain. The problem is that they’ve been able to get away with it, until now. There was so much leeway that the error was tolerated. The gap has closed and the breadth of responsibility has widened — technology is only part of the solution.
“What Steve’s brilliance is, is his ability to see something and then understand it and then figure out how to put into the context of his design methodology — everything is design.
… as soon as the designers walked in the room, everyone stopped talking because the designers are the most respected people in the organization. Everyone knows the designers speak for Steve because they have direct reporting to him. It is only at Apple where design reports directly to the CEO.
[...in comparison at Microsoft] everybody was talking and then the meeting starts and no designers ever walk into the room. All the technical people are sitting there trying to add their ideas of what ought to be in the design. That’s a recipe for disaster.”
Does IT even have designers and/or are there designers that direct the work outside of IT? Are you seeing the issues here?
“What makes Steve’s methodology different from everyone else’s is that he always believed the most important decisions you make are not the things you do – but the things that you decide not to do. He’s a minimalist.”
Deciding what not to do is critical to E2.0. The methodology of pursuing requirements focuses mainly on determining what to do — that’s what makes the approach the antithesis of E2.0. The decision has to be a design one — but an informed decision. The first E2.0 function I ever designed was a rework of an existing function (the best place to look for candidate opportunities is with the stuff already happening). In this case it was a people directory built on LotusNotes. It worked, but the interaction to get to the results was cumbersome.
So I worked backwards. The individual profile page at the end of the application was great. I simply eliminated all the other parts before it (not literally, just virtually) and designed a new UI that capitalized on the most common scenarios: searching for first name or last name. The existing ponderous application was left in place for all the other special case scenarios, like searching for everyone in a department, etc. Yes, all of these could have been redesigned over time, but the initial goal is always to go for the high volume or high return activities. Using code from the Yahoo! patterns, a prototype was up in 4 hours and it was production in 2 weeks. While most of that time was spent grappling with issues getting the data exchange to work, there was also the scheduling for moving something into production — IT itself is a barrier to E2.0, from an operational perspective.
Steve Jobs has a no bozo policy; so does E2.0:
“The other thing about Steve was that he did not respect large organizations. He felt that they were bureaucratic and ineffective. He would basically call them ‘bozos.’ That was his term for organizations that he didn’t respect.”
One of the grand potentials of E2.0 is as a superhighway for bypassing bozos.
Another key Jobs attribute:
“When he knows something is going to be important he tries to absorb as much as he possibly can.”
This reflects the influence of John Lasseter at Pixar, which I’ve reported on before. That said, there’s a grand connection between Jobs and Lasseter which predates 1996 (see Charlie Rose interview).
One of the issues with E2.0 implementations is that it’s more about discovery than anything else. E2.0 projects fail because they’re not focused on discovery. Speaking of Jobs’ fascination with Edwin Land, who brought the instant camera to Poloroid:
“Both of them had this ability to not invent products, but discover products. Both of them said these products have always existed – it’s just that no one has ever seen them before. We were the ones who discovered them.”
“So when I think about different kinds of CEOs — CEOs who are great leaders, CEOs who are great turnaround artists, great deal negotiators, great people motivators — but the great skill that Steve has is he’s a great designer. Everything at Apple can be best understood through the lens of designing.”
Are your E2.0 efforts being understood through the lens of designing?
by Rob Paterson
October 24, 2010 at 1:38 pm · Filed under
Adoption, CPB, Change, Connected Enterprise, Content, Culture, Doc Searls, Google, HBO, KETC, Media, Netflix, PBS, Platforms, Public TV, TV, User Revolution, Video
Will newspapers all die? Maybe not. I am sure that, in some form, some Newspapers will live on. But for most of us – the Newspaper as a “Paper” for the masses is already dead. Will Paper Books die? Maybe not – I treasure my new Picture Book of my son’s wedding. There are few text filled books I will always treasure. But as a mass market object, books are already dead for many people as the sales of eBooks and Readers show.
The mass market distribution systems that supported newspapers and books will die soon as a result. For traditional papers and books only have to shrink by 15 – 25% to make the economic burden of running the presses and the system too much. Once these systems have gone they will be gone for ever. New systems are emerging.
I can already design and set my new book and have it printed and sent back to me – a market of one!
This is a new system quite separate from the old book distribution and publishing system. New “newspapers” such as Politico and Huffington are here. Some old ones such as the Guardian are moving to the new space. Twitter and Facebook fill in more news for me. My new “news paper” will be edited largely by me for me!
The same process is now going to affect TV. Most of the old infrastructure will die. New structure will emerge quickly. Some old structure will hybridize. The power will shift from them to me!
I have just enjoyed an Apple TV for a week with Netflix. Now watching content via the web is easy. But the big attraction is not just that getting content online is easy. What I had not known about was how powerful the impact would be of how my habits of watching affects how Netflix adjusts its offering to me. In only a week, it has used its algorithm to begin to offer me content that I might never have noticed that I will almost certainly enjoy. What it is doing is “meaning making” of the almost infinite pool of content that is out there. This has put me in charge – I am now my own programmer. I am my own network CEO. I choose the time and I choose the content knowing that I will enjoy it. I also lose all the rubbish and all the ads.
I am constructing my own TV Network! This is the revolution that extends way beyond the web access issues. The web enables this personal customization for TV as wit will for books and news.
I am happy to pay a subscription for this. I don’t demand that this be free because it is great value for me. I will never go back to appointment TV – no matter who puts it on – a network, a cable company or public TV.
My bet is that within a year, the death of Appointment TV will be sure and a new system will be visible. Look at how TechCrunch see this right now!
- Google
unveiled its Google TV platform less than 3 weeks ago. You can’t ignore Google. Hey, they just built a car that drives itself. But Thursday, in a battle that will likely become more frequent between old media and new, ABC, CBS and NBC blocked their programs fromGoogle TV. MTV, Fox and HBO are still available, but that could change. Still, one TechCrunch post declared “I’ve seen the future and it begins on my sofa with Google TV.”
- Steve Jobs bragged this week that Apple has already sold 250,000 new Apple TVs. The first Apple TV shipped in 2007. It had its fans but didn’t take off like the iPod or iPhone. The second generation of Apple TV’s launched just last month. MG Siegler really likes the device, but admitted it’s not yet the killer device in the living room. To get there, he said, would require tv network subscription packages.
- “Watch Instantly” is booming at Netflix. A shocking statistic came out this week. 20% of Internet traffic during peak times in the U.S. is coming from Netflix.
For more on Netflix’s plans, see Sarah Lacy’s interview with CEO Reed Hastings.
- Hulu Plus will be coming to the Roku box in the fall.
For some, the Roku box may be the first step towards eliminating cable.
- Boxee announced the new Boxee Box will ship next month, both if you pre-ordered fromAmazon or want to buy one in stores.
- Flurry reported Apple’s iOS Apps are responsible for the recent downward trend in TV ratings. The actual cause may be a bit broader.
- A TechCrunch post Friday suggested the future of TV is HTML5.
At the moment much power remains with the old powers. Netflix and Google are enduring tough negotiations with the producers of content. But why wouldn’t they take up this mantle of being the producer? Why can’t they do an HBO? Certainly today if I was a maker of documentary who cannot get space on conventional TV, I would approach Netflix and Google. Just as cable supplanted the networks, so those who provide access via the web will supplant cable and networks.
So what then for Public TV and the local Public TV stations?
If you are a producer it seems straightforward to me – you too have to approach those who shape access to the web – or add a service to the web yourself!
But that leaves the local TV stations on the beach! It does but like a local book shop, the audience is going somewhere else for the mass content.
So what to do?
Here is Doc Searls’ advice in a recent interview with me at KETC:
I think that an answer is to build the “Local Cloud” – Host the new Forum or Agora or Market. Be the host of the new/old marketplace for sharing through video.
There is not yet a really well functioning local cloud yet for video. This is a huge hole, waiting to be filled. Look at all those who are learning to use video. They are driving to HQ video. Look at the new screens that offer up a much better experience.
Take a look at your new 1080p HD TV screen. You know what the best-looking source is for that? Your new 1080p camcorder. That’s because all the TV stations, and all the cable and satellite services, compress their video, often to the point where grass fields look plaid and detail is just wiggly lines. Camcorders compress video too, but not as much.
My point here is that more and more individuals and small groups are going to be in better and better positions to produce their own video, and won’t be satisfied seeing it compressed to ugliness on YouTube. They’ll want to produce their own movies, their own documentaries, their own creative work, outside the industrial system that YouTube comprises.
If they want to mash this video up, edit it, do CGI, do the kind of rendering that serious video requires, they won’t have the means at home. And it’s often too hard to do it out in some remote cloud provided by the likes of Amazon (which doesn’t even provide that yet — at least not exactly). They’ll need low-latency fat connections to back-end servers and rendering farms.
Thus we have a big opportunity for KETC and other public TV institutions, to ally with local telco and cable companies, which in most cases have the space, the conditioned power, and the direct connections to the Net’s backbone.
How much time before the Tipping Point? My feeling is 2-3 years tops. In 2-3 years time all your best audience will have made the shift to the web. This may be 30- 40% of the total. There will still be a conventional audience but it cannot pay the bills. Just as when a newspaper or a book publisher loses its best readers, it cannot pay its bills either.
The pace is change is accelerating as each new phase builds on the previous one and adds new platform power to the web. Coming right on the heels of all of this – a new web based system of education and then right after that a new web based health system. All based on the same idea – of putting you in the driver’s seat!
by Bill Ives
October 21, 2010 at 10:11 am · Filed under
Enterprise 2.0, Social Media
According to a new study by CNN 43% of peer-to-peer news sharing comes from social media networks and tools e.g. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, followed by email (30%), SMS (15%) and IM (12%). This is not surprising as social media makes it easier, often with a one click means to share. However, data on the topic is good. This blog has that capability and I often see multiple tweets on posts placed here. This is a good thing. Facilitating content sharing and conversations about enterprise 2.0 is one of the main objectives of this blog.
Social Media Today commented that the CNN study found 27% of ‘Frequent Sharers’ (defined as those sharing at least six stories each week) were responsible for 87% of all news shared online. They noted that, as in most online communities, a small number of users are responsible for the majority of content produced and shared.
To their credit Social Media Today did not see this as a bad thing or a shortcoming with social media. I have often seen comments on the “small” percentage of active sharers. However, 27% of a very large number is a very large number. Usually the content sharer percentage is smaller but that is still understandable. Some people need to be readers.
Social Media Today takes a different tack as they write that these influencers who are sharing very high volumes of news are important people for news organizations. There is a benefit from understanding more about how they behave and what they share. A similar understanding within the enterprise will be useful.
I would like to see some similar studies on the use of social media inside the enterprise. I imagine that the same dynamics will more likely hold in organizations that have more fully adopted enterprise 2.0. However, it is likely that email still dominates in most organizations as the primary way to share content. It is ironic as the benefits of using social media for content sharing are greater inside a closed trusted community where analytics can be more focused.
Does anyone know of such enterprise studies?
by Joe McKendrick
October 20, 2010 at 11:46 am · Filed under
2.0 Design Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, Social Computing, Social Media, Social Networking, User Revolution, Web 2.0
The Altimeter Group just wrapped up its “Rise of Social Commerce” event, and there’s no question that there is a groundswell of interest in adopting and adapting social networking to drive new business.
Altimeter partner Lora Cecere provided a four-stage continuum to assess where companies are at in their social business growth. The four key phases are as follows (by the way, she noted in her presentation, most companies are still in Stage 1):
- Stage 1 — “Let’s Be Social”: Companies “are using social technologies for the sake of being the social. The focus is on the brand, and building a community and its value.” Questions to be asked include: “What are the best tactics to use?” and “How do I influence
the most influential?”
- Stage 2 – “Enlightened Engagement”: Companies “recognize that customers seek to be informed during the shopping experience, and integrate an information layer onto the two-way dialog. This is done through external voices, from customers, prospects, subject matter experts, in the form of reviews or opinions, for example.” Questions to be asked include: “How do I make this easier for the shopper to engage?”, “How do I effectively connect the shopper to enterprise processes?”
and “How do I use social technologies to improve dialogue with the value chain?”
- Stage 3 — “Store of the Community”: Customers “help drive product selection, assortment, and merchandising. Few companies are ready for this phase, as it requires a complete rewiring of the organization.” Questions to be asked include: “How do I use shopper insights?”, “Which shopper input best reflects market opportunity?” and “How do I engage trading
partners to deliver against the store of the community?”
- Stage 4 — “Frictionless Commerce”: The buying experience “is completely redesigned to create a fully customer-centric experience. Companies will need to start with a blank slate to truly envision what this will look like.” Questions to be asked include: “How do I redesign the buying experience?”, “How do I enrich enlightened engagement processes without slowing buying cycles?”
I like Ted Rubin’s wrap-up of the discourse being heard through the conference, and he surfaces the ROR metric (Return on Relationship), which pairs nicely with the network-effect Return on Investment in Interaction that my colleague Jon Husband has discussed here at FastForward. Rubin talked about the relationship aspect of social business:
“The view/perspective I keep hearing is all about leveraging consumer’s social graph to sell more product. But when I hear the case studies, and see where true progress is being made, I hear more about interaction, engagement, and sharing… i.e. relationships. When I think about social commerce what seems to be the greatest opportunity is growing/nurturing the connection, participation and loyalty of a consumer, which in turn will build ROR… Return on Relationship. This is the first step required to make all this social integration sustainable and long lasting. Relationships are what will lead to the ability to sell more, not using customers to sell more product, but by facilitating/enabling feedback, sharing, reviews, and therefore build dynamic advocates who openly sell product they love and are passionate about.”
