Archive for FASTforward'09
by Bill Ives
February 22, 2011 at 3:21 am · Filed under
FASTforward'09
Here is a useful Gilbane research report on Smart Content in the Enterprise by Geoff Bock, Dale Waldt, and Mary LaPlante. It covers XML applications. As the authors note, these application have long proven value with reusable componentized content. However, it has been hard for XML champions to get greater acceptance within the enterprise. The report explores this parado. Thr authors looked at both failures and successes to try and abstract common points that could be used by firms wanting to make greater use of the potential within XML.
To answer these questions, they talked with business and technology leaders connected with successful XML deployments and supplemented this with their own experience in XML implementations. The key findings include a shift toward an outward facing customer impact view of content practices rather than a focus on internal operational efficiencies.
The authors write that this change in focus for finding value is causing a reversal in how applications are designed. Rather than starting with the content creation process for greater efficiency, successful applications of XML begin with the content delivery process to increase value to the user. Then they work backward to the creation effort. This reversal has sparked a demand for new ways to enrich content with XML tags for better embedded metadata. The focus on the end state of content use has also broadened the range of contributors to its creation. It has also encouraged the additional of more social components.
The authors use the term “smart content” to describe this new use of XML. It is granular at the right level, useful across applications, and supports collaboration. All of these are traits that can be useful in the more social enterprises and Web sites that are emerging and, according to the research, benefits are there. It makes sense to me and it seems that smarter use of XML is one way to ride the current wave of interest in social applications. The report is addressed to both implementers and vendors in this space and should provide great value to both.
The report concludes that it is important to focus on four content factors: granularity, enrichment, interoperability, and collaboration. The built in granularity needs to be complex enough to support effective repurposing and simple enough to not make this repurposing too difficult. Enrichment guidelines follow this just enough advice. Interoperability is supported by rich tags. The report offers the example of combining directory listing with location information to offer localized content. Collaboration can be enhanced by getting the right content to the right users through smarter content.
The report offers a rich set of findings, case examples, practical advice, and addresses the change management issues required to make effective use of smart content. If you plan to make effective use of XML or you are building applications to address this market, this report should provide valuable insights. It is publicly available for download at the Gilbane web site.
by Joe McKendrick
January 30, 2011 at 5:36 pm · Filed under
Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise Software, FASTforward'09, Social Computing, Social Media, Web 2.0
Is ‘Social CRM’ (customer relationship management) too good to be true?
Houston Neal, who runs an advisory service for software buyers, has been watching the growing hype around “Social CRM,” and asks: is it for real?
The answer is, he opines, not yet, but organizations sure could use it. The problem is, he says, nobody has a good definition for Social CRM yet, and this is creating confusion in the market.
As I mentioned in a previous post here at FastForward, “Social CRM” has a redundant ring to it. Think of the phrases “round circle” or “free gift” or “digital computer.” The bottom line is that if a company has a non-social, closed-off CRM system, it really isn’t doing CRM at all, is it?
Any CRM implementation worth its salt these days need to blend social media data into the system. Otherwise, it’s a system that is completely missing an important and growing channel that involves many highly engaged customers. The key is to make all your CRM efforts “Social” CRM efforts.
Houston points to another issue that may hamper putting more social into CRM — a highly fragmented market. “The debate over Social CRM has been drawn out over the past couple of years and analysts are still at odds over how to define it. Depending on who you ask, social CRM will mean something different.”
For example, he points out, the social CRM landscape is comprised of several evolving software categories — including the following:
- CRM packages
- Social media monitoring
- Social platforms
- Social analytics
Each category has about 20 to 150 vendors, Houston says. The challenge is deciding which category of software to pursue. He offers the following advice for sorting out a Social CRM strategy:
Don’t look to buy ‘Social CRM’ solutions: “Instead, you need to decide what you are trying to accomplish and which categories [mentioned above] are most likely to make a meaningful contribution to your strategy.”
Define your goals for a Social CRM strategy: “If you just want to track what customers are saying about your brand on the Web, then a social media monitoring application will suffice. But if you want to analyze that data, identify influencers, or spot trends, you should explore social analytics. Finally, if owning the community is strategically important, you will need a platform to build out that environment for your constituents.”
Look to traditional CRM vendors for enhanced enterprise functionality: “Social CRM vendors don’t offer the same level of sales, service and marketing functionality that traditional CRM vendors offer. So if you need capabilities like sales lead management, lead nurturing and a few social features on the side, then you should really be looking at CRM software.
by Joe McKendrick
January 14, 2011 at 5:45 pm · Filed under
2.0 Design Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise Software, FASTforward'09, Social Computing, Social Media, Social Networking, Web 2.0
What exactly is the difference between “Social Business” and “Enterprise 2.0,” if there is one?
The question came up at in a Quora discussion, and asked again by Ross Dawson in one of his latest posts.
It’s semantics, but important semantics. Many articles and papers are using the terms interchangeably. You may recall it was Andrew MacAfee who first surfaced the term “Enterprise 2.0″ back in 2007 as a way to describe the application of Web 2.0 approaches and thinking to enterprise settings, but separate it from the consumerist fanfare.
For his part, Ross sees Social Business as an emerging way to describe the transformation that organizations are undertaking as part of their Enterprise 2.0 activities. Enterprise 2.0 as a term may have a more technical cast to it.
In the Quora discussion, our colleague Jevon McDonald also saw Enterprise 2.0 in terms of the tools and Social Business as the outcome:
“Enterprise 2.0 represents a set of technologies and methodologies for IT implementation inside the enterprise. A Social Business uses Enterprise 2.0 software to implement internal social process but also accounts for things such as: external social presence, supporting process, HR issues, policy development and governance.”
Stowe Boyd echoed similar sentiments:
“A social business is an organization designed consciously around sociality and social tools, as a response to a changed world and the emergence of the social web, including social media, social networks, and a long list of other advances. Enterprise 2.0 is generally used to represent the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies — like cloud computing, social media, wikis, and the like — and is, as such, principally a technology adoption issue, and not a reconceptualization of business operations.”
John Tropea, on the other hand, sees Social Business as the journey to reach Enterprise 2.0. E 2.0, he says, is more the idealized end state — Enterprise 2.0 is a concept and strategy to do business a different way… a more transparent workplace, two-way communication, networked/activity centric overlayed on the present process-centric and blended with hierarchy.” As he puts it:
“With social business design we may reach a state of enterprise 2.0 eventually.”
So which comes first — Enterprise 2.0 or Social Business?
by Joe McKendrick
January 5, 2011 at 1:38 pm · Filed under
2.0 Design Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, FASTforward'09, Social Computing, Social Media, Social Networking, Web 2.0
Consider the plight of the Web designer. I saw a comic a couple of years back (author unknown) that really laid out quite well the hair-pulling process of designing, building, and maintaining a site. It goes something like this:
- “Everything is cool the beginning. The client communicates their needs. You set expectations. Enthusiasm and excitement all ’round.”
- “The client shows you their current Website. You both laugh at how terrible it is.”
- “You redesign the Website. It looks nice and works well. This is the high point of the design.”
- “Just a few ‘minor’ changes.”
- “Minor changes start to add up.”
- “The client gets others involved: ‘Looks great, but I want feedback from my friends, co-workers, uncle, pet hamster, etc.’”
- “All hope is lost. You begin to fantasize about other careers… “
- “You are no longer a Web designer. You are a mouse cursor inside a graphics program which the client can control by speaking, emailing and instant messaging.”
- “An abomination is born. The client has completely forgotten that they hired you, the Web designer, to build them a great product.”
The process of Website design and management has turned up many, many abominations for businesses across the land. However, social networking may be sorting that all out. In fact, the flight from Website abominations may now be fueling the social networking movement for many businesses.
IDC’s Frank Gens, for one, recently issued his predictions for the year ahead, and foresees social networking software growing at a 38% percent clip over the next five years. In addition, more than one-quarter of vendors could be gobbled up in 2011:
“We believe that — as a sure sign of social business mainstreaming — 2011 will be a year of consolidation and convergence for social business software vendors, as well as a year of adoption expanding into small and medium-sized businesses.”
The small to medium size business sector is an interesting and growing sweet spot for social enterprise. In fact, SMB adoption is likely to grow to 40 percent of these companies employing online services to better market their products and services, he predicts. The benefit to small businesses: it’s cheaper and easier to use free online social media services than to go through the time and expense of setting up a customized Website.
In his 2011 report, Gens observes that Website development has topped out for many small and medium-size businesses. Instead, he says, “small and midsize firms will increasingly flock to Facebook and other social networks to establish a free online presence that improves their ability to acquire, engage, and retain customers without the hassle and cost of setting up a traditional Website. We predict that the percentage of SMBs using social networks for promotional purposes will exceed 40% by year-end 2011.”
by Joe McKendrick
November 27, 2010 at 12:03 am · Filed under
FASTforward'09
Innovation is often looked at as a random acts of brilliance, but there are now ways to employ technology and services to capture and channel new ideas along the right course.
Some software tools — sometimes referred to as “ideation” platforms — have emerged to try to better systemize the innovation process. The idea is that ideas can be moved through a workflow of processes — just as projects are managed by project management software — from initial design to proposal stage, refinement, and funding.
How many ideas never get off the ground, languish, or are never even voiced, since enterprises usually don’t have formal systems to capture them and hold them up for possible conversion into new products and services?
Social networking can support this process every step of the way. There’s plenty of excitement, of course around the formulation stage, which is often crowdsourced with awards and prizes to the brightest bulb.
There are other ways social networking plays roles throughout the idea lifecycle. Forrester’s Nigel Fenwick walks through the stages of moving ideas from inception to productization, and the role of social in a new post:
INVENT: Ideation communities to propose and rank new ideas; discussion boards and wikis for exploring possibilities.
VALIDATE: Blogs and discussion boards to test concepts.
INCUBATE: Collaboration work groups; customer and partner communities.
IMPLEMENT: Promotion through social channels such as blogs, microblogs, videos, and communities.
MEASURE: Measure impact through social communities; reward idea contributors through community kudos.
« Previous entries ·
Next entries »
