Friday, February 29, 2008

E2.0 = new KM?

Andrew McAfee recently wrote about success factors for Enterprise 2.0. It's a nice short post and gives a good list of (categorized) success factors. To comment on some of them:
  • Tools are egalitarian and freeform
For the first time I thought: should the admin rights to these tools also be given to all. I don't mean 'read/write' access, but also: being able to add participants/accounts, changing access rights for internals and externals, etc.
  • The toolset is quickly standardized
Yes, I would agree with this statement. But I wonder if this will hold in the future. People have been writing about employees being able to select their own tools inside and outside the organization.
  • Excellent gardeners exist
Interesting, is this a.o. the new role of the traditional Information Management department?
  • Slack exists in the workweek
Love this one. This is true: we need slack in our work to share, learn and act.

Listening to Andrew's presentation (his above-mentioned post is a summary of that presentation) Tom Davenport concludes ‘Enterprise 2.0’ is the new KM. As I pointed to before Davenport and McAfee had some debate in the past if Enterprise 2.0 is really changing business and if it's really new. Now he seems to agree more with McAfee. I'm surprised it took Davenport so long to see this… Seeing this he has an interesting statement on the differences between classical KM and E2.0:

The tools are largely different, for one. Perhaps the most important difference is the emphasis on emergence of content structures in E2.0, rather than specifying them in advance, as early knowledge managers had to. But I've always felt that most information environments require some mixture of structure and emergence.

I don't agree with the comment on Davenport's post by James Dellow that E2.0 "is all about the technology". Sure technology is important, but I find that E2.0/Web 2.0 is about people, social ties and… technology (finally!) really being able to support the social process. So E2.0 is all about "you".

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Information behaviour of the researcher of the future

The University College Lond (UCL) CIBER group recently published an interesting and strange report on "information behavior of the researcher of the future". The study was "was commissioned by the British Library and JISC to identify how the specialist researchers of the future, currently in their school or pre-school years, are likely to access and interact with digital resources in five to ten years' time. This is to help library and information services to anticipate and react to any new or emerging behaviors in the most effective way."
So they focus on the "
Google generation" which they define as "those born after 1993 and explore the world of a cohort of young people with little or no recollection of life before the web."
The goal of the study is to find out if they "are searching for and researching content in new ways and whether this is likely to shape their future behavior as mature researchers?" And "whether or not new ways of researching content will prove to be any different from the ways that existing
researchers and scholars carry out their work?" And finally "to inform and stimulate discussion about the future of libraries in the internet era."

Interesting! And this report has lots of nice insights and thoughts. The "strange" part is than many statements are uncertain or cannot be validated. So this gives the study a somewhat open end or, at least, a call for more research on this topic.

I'll pass on some highlights:

  • Based an a global survey it was found that the Google generation "college students still use the library, but they are using it less (and reading less) since they first began using internet research tools". I also see people in general are using the library less. But I do not see them reading less. I think book sales have gone up since the Internet has surged. And furthermore at university and college I don’t see less study books; I still see the students have to read the same amount of pages - on average.
  • I'm glad this report seems to put the difference between the Google generation and the others in perspective, saying that the differences aren't that big.
  • The changing way in using libraries does have implications for librarians. I find that librarians, as do literature researchers, should really step forward and show that information searching is a tough job and you have to learn to do it. Foremost you have to learn to judge the search results and relate them to each other and compare them. These skills are also being taught at college and university, but could be given more stress. At least I see the literature researcher in our company leading the way and showing, in practice, what their expertise is. The stuff they come up with I hardly ever find on the internet!
  • The report mentions "skimming" as being new. Is that true? My dad is definitely not from the Google generation, but he skims better than I do…
  • I think and I see the virtual library (as Google Print and Google Scholar) as supplementary of the physical library. Yes, we now, in this era, start with the search engine, sift out what we need, compare and judge sources, see what other’s say of those sources and select/print/buy on the relevant ones. Isn't that wonderful? Librarians should step up and offer searching and ordering services to customers! If they're the pro's, let them show that to us! So "reversing the process of dis-intermediation", as the report concludes, is not the way to go. I don’t think you can reverse it, you should connect to this process (yes, "avoid decoupling") and show why "intermediation" is needed.
Well, just some remarks on this insightful report and I'm looking forward to more research on this topic. Because these results are not only interesting for librarians but also corporate information and knowledge management, for instance.

By the way, another summary can be found
here.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

What's the difference between Forums, Blogs, and Social Networks?

Web Strategy's Jeremiah Owyang has an insightful, short post on the difference between Forums, Blogs, and Social Networks. I agree with Mick's comment that the definition of "social networks" does not fit all kinds of social network tools, but it's a good start anyway. As soon as people understand what a social network (tool) is, we can start telling them about the different flavors.
In the comments Jeremiah also gives a definition of a wiki: "collaborative white boards" or "libraries".
I still find the "visual definitions" of wiki's, rss, blogs, etc in short video's by Common Craft also say it all.

Related to this post Jeremiah also has an interesting video-interview with himself on social networks and what they mean for enterprises and enterprise marketing.

Knowledge Management lessons

Anecdote’s Shawn gives his “lessons learned” about knowledge management as if he were asked to give a key note on this topic. In short (- please go ahead and read the full version -) they are:

  • All KM is change management
  • Link to what matters (which sometimes is the business process)
  • Collect stories early and often (success stories from inside the organization)

I agree with all of them. They are important issues. W.r.t. stories I would say: if you don’t have stories from within the organization, look for them in other companies. Yeah, then they can say: this won’t work for us, but at least you have a debate! W.r.t. “what matters” for the employees: my experience is that it often has nothing directly to do with the business. For instance, employees see to much reinventing the wheel and people not talking to each other and want to change this situation.

So, what would my list be?

  • understand people and the way they work (relates to change). Try to really connect your KM program to the people.
  • tell about inspiring stories from other companies, as well as stories from within.
  • have an end-vision, but progress in small steps. What should this company look like w.r.t. KM and how are we going to get there in small steps?

Monday, February 25, 2008

D-O-C-U-M-E-N-T checklist

Interesting checklist by Bob Glushko of "Berkeley". It is "a set of analysis and design phases that yield implementable models of business processes". I was wondering if the order of the checklist mattered? E.g. shouldn't 'user types' be higher up than 'document types'?
Well, Bob already posted a lengthy answer to my questions. Thanks Bob! Bob agrees with reorder of the checklist, but then it's not a nice acronym anymore (-- I understand, good reason). Bob explains the context of the checklist by telling about "the snake". It shows the change in order of the checklist. Nice model and I will "ride the snake"!

Saturday, February 23, 2008

The RSS Explanation Problem

Understanding RSS is a critical factor "in the successful adoption of wikis (and other social media tools)" in enterprises, says ChiefTech's James Dellow (- I'll write more on this post soon!). If so, then explaining RSS to others is important. This blog post by Common Craft with wonderful blogposts and vid's addresses this issue.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Breathe when reading Email!

Something interesting for the weekend... When you get to work and open your email, do you experience some kind of tension? Most people seem to. Have you ever paid attention to how you breathe when you read your email? Your breathing changes! As Alex Wright said:
This seems like one of those discoveries that was hiding in plain sight. Thinking about it, there's no question that I do indeed tend to hold my breath while reading my e-mail.
So does this have a name? Yes it does, says Linda Stone (yes of "continuous partial attention" a.o.). It's called Email Apnea. Email apnea is "a temporary absence or suspension of breathing, or shallow breathing, while doing email". She found our from her own work practice, but also she:

... observed others on computers and BlackBerries: in their offices, their homes, at cafes. The vast majority of people held their breath, or breathed very shallowly, especially when responding to email. I watched people on cell phones, talking and walking, and noticed that most were mouth-breathing and hyperventilating. Consider also, that for many, posture while seated at a computer can contribute to restricted breathing.

Does it matter? How was holding my breath affecting me?

I called Dr. Margaret Chesney, at the National Institute of Health (NIH). Research conducted by Dr. Margaret Chesney and NIH research scientist Dr. David Anderson demonstrated that breath-holding contributes significantly to stress-related diseases.
Wow, we have to watch out! So, what's the solution? "Breathing exercises"! Something to think about during the weekend, eh?!

Thursday, February 21, 2008

On Corporate Intranet (2)

I had some time to read a couple of posts on "Intranet" that I'd like to share with you (- like I did before).

Richard Dennison of BT has a couple of interesting posts. For instance on: what is an Intranet? I mentioned the first post before, but there's a second post too. Here's some interesting remarks. On using Internet tools for the Intranet:
Anyway … one interesting comment that Shel made in the piece was about ‘duplicating’ internet tools for intranets … this has certainly been my experience to date of how intranets evolve and take advantage of innovations that happen on the internet.
However, I wonder if that will continue to be the case in the future, or if companies will be forced to allow employees to conduct more and more business activity on the internet itself in the ‘native’ tools (… providing security, legal, etc, risks are mitigated).
(...)
Playing catch-up on an intranet is becoming less and less sustainable and, due to the rapid rate of innovation on the internet, it is becoming increasingly difficult to offer anything other than a significantly poorer user experience behind firewalls from the one employees can experience on the internet.

So Intranet will be Internet in the future. For BT this is related to "the extended enterprise" and "the 'edges' of companies becoming more permeable". This relates well to one of Jane's interesting Intranet questions she's now answering.
There's an interesting comment on this post too. "Andrewmarr" says:
However, what is needed is a way of enabling information to be re-used in different contexts.
This is true. Isn’t the dataportability initiative hopeful when it comes to reuse of information in different contexts. Now this is focused on data in different Internet tools (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc). But why not expand this to tools inside and outside the organization?

Relating to another one of Jane's great Intranet questions, BT has also been talking about the "Changing Nature of Intranet Content". And he gives us some insight in their ideas on this topic. Basically they say: "ALL content is collaborative - what varies is the degree of collaboration involved in the four steps outlined above. " The four steps are: generation, publication, consumption and management/governance.
Finally Richard also shared their Intranet Strategy with us (compare this to the Intranet Hive). They have a neat picture to visualize it. Nicely done. It nicely shows that the Intranet has many faces, depending on how you look at it. I could not come up with an extra point of view. I completely agree with Steven Kent's comment that "it's sometimes better to let the intranet 'blend in' with the user's everyday jobs, rather than being more 'in their face'. If an Intranet doesn't blend in with everyday work I would say it's useless.

Finally an interesting (older...) post by Andrew McAfee on "Facebook AS the Intranet". I posted about this topic some time ago too. First of all Andrew points to the company Avenue A | Razorfish (1000 employees) that (largely) built their Intranet on MediaWiki. And that Serena Software has adopted Facebook as their Intranet. McAfee then asks if there are good reasons to keep on developing Intranet on 1.0 platforms? The discussion in the comments is really interesting.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Blog on!

Stop using email and blog more! That basically sums up the interview that was held with IBM's Luis Suarez on "Effecting Blogging: Joining the Conversation". You can find the whole interview here. It's an interesting interview that gives all kinds of tips and tricks on "getting started with blogging", "tools for blogging", "why blog?", etc.
I was hoping to find answers to a question I have for some time now. I wonder how bloggers keep track of comments
they left somewhere. How do you (Luis and others!) keep track of comments you posted on someones blog post?

Stop Using Email?!

Can you believe someone saying: "I stopped using email!"?! Well, Luis Suarez just said it and he's doing it too. This is what he wrote:

Yes, I'm giving up on e-mail! At least, work related e-mail! That's right, this week I have launched a new experiment, or initiative, at work where I have diverted most of my conversations into social computing and social software tools, both internal and external.

You did what?!?! Yes, I surely did!! Just like you are reading it. Last Saturday I decided that enough was enough and I created a post in my internal blog where I was mentioning that from that day onwards I would not be answering any e-mails, nor write any e-mails myself either, but instead I would make the most out of social software tools and social computing, in general, to get in touch with other knowledge workers and collaborate further sharing and exchanging our knowledge over there.

I'm really curious how long he's going to keep up with it and what his experiences are. This experiment is really intriguing. It reminds me of the Wired article on the see-through CEO. Why have one-to-one conversations in email, when lots of stuff in email is interesting for many more people? Why not be more transparent and open?
It's a nice topic for a presentation. I know he is based in Amsterdam, so maybe we can organize something in The Netherlands soon, eh?
A list of tools Luis is using instead of email is also given. That's very helpful!

Luis has a second follow-up post on this topic, showing what it means to stop using emails and put conversations in the open for all to read and enjoy. He also addresses the question if all employees could actually do what he is doing. Could for instance "an IBM account team for a major client" also do this? Luis says "yes". Read his post to see why. It also addresses how social networking tools (as apposed to email?) can enhance face-to-face meetings. At least, reading less email will give us time to drink a cup of coffee with colleagues...

Interesting Questions about Intranet (2)

Some time ago I pointed you to "interesting questions about Intranet" on Jane McConnell's blog. It's too bad that I was the only one who tried to answer the questions... I'm really curious what others would answer!
Anyway, Jane started to give her answers to the questions one-by-one. Go and take a look and join the conversation!

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Yes, Wiki markup has no future

ColumnTwo commenting is broken, so I'll comment here. I'd like to pass you this interesting post. I agree fully with the statement that "Wiki markup has no future". Some time ago I pointed to Pikiwiki as my new standard for wiki's.

Paper documents more secure than digital ones?

Interesting pointer to an article about the security of paper and digital documents. Are digital documents more secure than digital ones? Some time ago Xerox demonstrated ink that would fade from the paper after a certain period of time.

Getting Things Done

I too use the 'Getting Things Done' system for my work. I posted on it several times before. Just recently I ran into Ton Zijlstra's "Thoughts on GTD System Weaknesses". It's always interesting to hear how others use GTD and value it.
Ton has been using the GTD system for about 9 months. What I clearly recognize in his post is that GTD is not one-size-fits-all.
I've been using for about two years now. You have to tweak it to make it fit for your (type of) work. I actually also don't use GTD strictly. For instance, I don't use the filer cabinet in the way David Allen describes in his book. And I do also prioritize my tasks with dates using my Palm, as commentor Oliver Gassner writes.

I would disagree with Ton that GTD is all about lists. It is also about lists. But the lists should be kept short and actionable. GTD says we should fill tasks in our agenda if they require a certain amount of time and have to be done before a certain date. So reading RSS feeds and thinking about them could be a fixed slot during the day, as Oliver also writes.
What did trigger me though, is what Ton wrote about lists and relatedness of tasks. I wonder if it should be possible to relate tasks in a network-ish way. This relates to what GTD calls "projects". But projects are very list-y in GTD. One more thought is to be able to share these lists or network of tasks with friends, would be nice too. "Social GTD"! Maybe something new for the GTD plugin for Outlook?

"Staying aware of my social network and context" is indeed important. I think that strict GTD would say: this is a task. For me: this isn't a task. It just something you do. I have my things to do during the day/week. All other time is used for social stuff. GTD helped me feel comfortable to take time for socializing. Before that, when I was socializing, I usually had that nagging feeling that there were things to do (tasks). Getting a grip on those tasks gave me more rest in my head to really concentrate on my social contacts when interacting with them.

I like Ton's idea at the end of his post:
One way in which the GTD method could become more valuable is if I could get patterns from it about what I do, that became inbox items again. Another if I could shape my GTD reviews to help me tune my antennas for the peripheral vision better as I described above. Something to think about further.
I agree, this is interesting. Although this would have to get patterns from my digital and physical work world!
Thanks for sharing you thoughts on GTD with us, Ton!

Friday, February 15, 2008

An Idea and Time

A nice thought to ponder on in the weekend...
There's nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.
Ran into this nice quote by Victor Hugo in: Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership. Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness.

The Surge of Collaboration

A lot of attention is being paid to collaboration these days. Allan Leinard of GigaOM is "desparetely seeking better collaboration tools". The interesting part of that post is the fact they're looking for a collaboration platform to collaborate internally and externally. After evaluating several tools they still haven't found the ideal tool. This is what he's looking for:
What we would like to find is a set of collaboration tools that will allow us to build a knowledge base that is useful for both our internal diligence and our network of advisers. Ideally, the tool would take our mailing list traffic, automatically organize and tag it, and then allow context-based searches. Other desired features would involve both propagating popular information up and down the knowledge base and allowing members to rate it (perhaps in a Digg-like fashion).
Interesting requirements! I don't know of any commercial tool that can do this either. IBM does seem to be using something that is able to do this, refering to this HBR article I posted about some time ago. Anyway, collaborating in a more open world is something most companies are addressing. You hear loads of companies moving to Sharepoint as their new collaboration (and Intranet) platform. This Defrag post points in the direction of Sharepoint. And writing about the general trend, it states:

I see two big trends emerging:

1. “Collaboration” is not a “nice to have” IT purchase: C-level types tend to see IT spending in 2 camps — “nice to have” and “must have.” Or, more traditionally, “productivity enhancing” and “cost reduction.” No matter how you slice that pie, most people would think of “collaboration tools” as “nice to have” purchases. Except for one small problem: People who are not “IT purchasers” can easily set up collaboration tools for themselves. The result is a collaboration environment run wild — as employees set up blogs, wikis, rss feeds, gmail accounts (and who knows what else) that are A) not under the “control” of IT and B) may not even live inside of the corporate firewall. As such, IT seems to be waking up to the fact that they *must* get their hands around what’s happening in terms of collaboration, or risk running into data protection and compliance issues that are a pure nightmare waiting to happen. Throw in the business intelligence and productivity benefits, and you suddenly find collaboration to be a “must have” purchase.

2. IT architecture is increasingly cloud-based: To limit collaboration strictly to “on-premise” software that lives strictly within the firewall takes away at least 50% of the benefit. As such, companies like Jive (and Microsoft) are pushing on how to stretch the architecture of their products to more closely reflect the “cloud reality” that most *users* take for granted. This trend makes things like RSS and XMPP (call them “cloud protocols” for lack of a better term) extremely interesting.

So, where's all this attention for collaboration coming from? Shawn from Anecdote has two interesting posts on this topics. One is a pointer to a Business Week article on collaboration. The second is an analysis why collaboration is resurging. (And also read ChiefTech's response.) What I like about his post is the focus on people (instead of technology). He says:
But the technology alone doesn't give us collaboration. You would be forgiven for thinking it does. Today if you search on the term 'collaboration' the majority of results will point to technology solutions.
I fully agree. But isn't the new surge collaboration, among others, due to user-focused, easy-to-use collaboration. People using Gmail, Google Docs, Wiki's and Blogs at home and thinking: why can't we use this easy stuff for internal and external enterprise colloboration and communication? But, I agree, even after concluding the technology has improved hugely, technology is not enough to foster collaboration. I liked the list Shawn pointed us to:
...take us beyond the technological and in particular she proposes a process describing how collaboration happens. This is important because it gets us thinking about the types of things we can do in an organisation to foster collaboration. Gray's process has 4 phases (updated more recently from the original three):
  1. problem setting phase: "getting people to the table"
  2. negotiation phase: "reaching agreement on what to do"
  3. implementation phase: "ensuring the agreement is carried out"
  4. Institutionalisation phase: "building a long-term relationship"
I also liked what he wrote further down:
The gentle art of conversation is the starting point (personally I disagree with the adversarial approaches, such as debate, as a useful approach to collaboration). Bohm called it dialogue and it involves listening, suspending judgement, being open and honest and working together to build on ideas. These types of conversations then lead to questions of what will be the next actions of the group, how do we divide up the effort, what will good look like and when we deliver our bits?
This is so true and we all can learn from it. How many companies are full of fierce, nonconstructive debates and meeting? Or, even worse, no debate at all, secrecy?
To round up Shawn says:
Collaboration is important more than ever because of the nature of the world we live in. The problem, however, is that we not taught collaboration in organisations. It happens through necessity and success is mostly by chance and experience. Organisations wishing to develop a collaboration capability more systematically will need to thinking clearly about the process of collaboration and how they can support that process.
This relates well to one of Dave Snowden's rules: Knowledge will only ever be volunteered it can not be conscripted.

The Simplest KM tool - The Paperless Office Revisited

Just wrote about the possible paperless office and home the other day. Here are two examples from practice of people telling us why the paperless office is not around yet. One is from Inside Knowledge on "The Simplest KM Tool", the notebook. And the other is on why some like to read printed documents/book and what the implications for the print industry.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Paperless Home?

If you follow my blog you'll know that I'm intrigued by the ongoing debate on "the (myth of the) paperless office". You can find two of my posts here and here. Just recently, an article about the paperless home was published in the New York Times titled "Pushing Paper Out the Door". Most of the article also applies to the office too.

The article is a good read. It's not filled with high expectations, but looks for practical ways to reduce the consumption of paper. And some people are interviewed that are working on paperless homes. Scanning in all your paper stuff (also pictures etc.) is one of the (known) ways.
What I think is the real barrier is the first step: deciding to go digital and scanning in all the paper you already have (or throwing it away). Furthermore you need a simple tool to help you easily store the files, add filenames and tags.

Looking at my own life I do clearly see I use less paper. And I use paper in a different way than a couple of years ago. In most cases "the digital version" of the document is, indeed, "the master copy". What I kindof missed though was an analysis why people (still) use paper. I've pointed to the book "the Myth of the Paperless Office" before. This book tells us why we use paper and what affordances of paper need to be overcome before we really have a paperless home and office. I'm looking forward to new ideas that bring that world ever closer!

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Working from Home?!

Again an interesting post by Alex Iskold of ReadWriteWeb! It's on the the new "Work from Home" Generation.
I agree with most of this post. It nicely sums up the pros and cons. The comments are interesting to read too.
It is my experience that working at home every now and then, really increases productivity. I seem to look at my email less (I simply open it less...). Furthermore I take a stack of stuff to do with me. Usually stuff to read and write. Almost always I get through the whole stack. I would (for some reason...) never be able to do this at work. So, I agree with one of the comments: working home say one day a week would be ideal.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

What if the Internet went down...and didn't come back up? - Network World

Well, what if the Internet went down...and didn't come back up? Some say:
It ain't gonna happen. ... "The loss of the Internet for days, weeks or permanently would mean more than just an end to annoying spam and being cut off from the ideal way to settle bar arguments. The ongoing explosion of virtual business services of all sorts, accounting, payroll and even sales would come to a halt, and so would many companies. Customer service could still be handled by phone, except where the phone system was Internet-based. Much more severely affected would be complex project management between companies, especially those projects based on shared CAD (computer-assisted design) files or even shared PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) files. On the other side of the discussion, however, only about 20 percent of respondents to an Internet poll on potential failures thought that loss of Internet corporate communications and collaboration would be catastrophic and 10 percent thought it would have no effect at all."
Some approach it from the positive side:
As a futurist I like to use a different perspective-let's identify good things associated with an end-of-total-connectivity apocalypse and work our way toward a middle ground."
And if we lost the Internet could we do without it?
Neither De Jager nor May thinks we would even try. Says de Jager, "We wouldn't do that. We'd recreate the Internet."

Added May, "Would Net2 that would be erected to replace Net1 be better? And how long would it take to get Net2 up?"

Dave Snowden on Knowledge Management and Web 2.0

Finally had time to listen to Dave Snowden's talk at KMWorld 2007 on Knowledge Management And if your not interested in knowledge management, do listen to the stuff on complexity and "the Magic Roundabout". It's is funny and interesting. (Tags, categories and knowledge sharing). The recording is not too good, so listen to it in a quiet environment. But the talk is very interesting. If you know Snowden's work, lots is recognizable. Topics are: what web 2.0 means for knowledge management, complexity, language, sense making, social tagging, taxonomies, etc.

Friday, February 8, 2008

Google Launches Localized News Service - also for Companies?

Wow, this is an interesting development: Google Launches Localized News Service. I was wondering: Is/Will it also be possible to publish your own local news to Google Local News? And, talking about 'local': a company can also be seen as something 'local' (even if it is a global company...). So, couldn't this also be used to offer all the aggregated news of one company on Google News?

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Google launches free Team Edition of Apps

Some time ago I posted on "Google docs and the Future of Document Management". A future was envisioned that employees would be "able to select their own email and collaboration (web) apps." ZDNet points to an initiative by Google that shows that this vision is not crazy or unrealistic. Google is offering a free Team Edition of Apps. You just fill in your email address and that of the people your collaborating with and off you are! Here's a video explaining it all.
However, my question about 'corporate memory' and 'corporate information management' is not answered yet.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Guy Kawasaki on The Art of Innovation

Wonderful and funny talk about 'The art of Innovation by Guy Kawasaki on IT Conversations. Love the 'roll the D.I.C.E.E.' part on product innovation. (18:00) Great products need to be:
  • Deep (deep products),
  • Intelligent (you see a product and say: Somebody was thinking!),
  • Complete (totality of experience),
  • Elegant, and,
  • Emotive (the product generates strond emotions).

Friday, February 1, 2008

The Future of Document Management (2)

A couple of day ago I pointed to a post about the future of Document Management. Here are the predictions by CMSWatch on CMSWire. Two interesting ones are:
#3: MOSS enters the valley of disappointment
They continue on their “SharePoint is a virus” bend predicting it’s growth and the inevitable backlash, particularly in larger enterprises. The backlash relates to compliance issues as organizations lose site of their data in their SharePoint sites. Organizations also start to wake up to the reality that it isn’t cheap to build applications in SharePoint (at least not as easy as Microsoft had led people to believe).

(...)

#7: Facebook backlash in the enterprise
As fast as it’s been growing, Facebook may meet it’s maker in the enterprise as organizations try it and find disappointment. Why? It’s not a platform for information-oriented collaboration and it’s security capabilities are less then stellar.
Actually I was quite surprised by the cynical tone of the predictions. Not very objective, with hardly any real arguments. For instance, what I see is that companies are all moving towards the Sharepoint platform. Most companies will start to implement and use it in 2008. If disappointment kicks in, it won't be in 2008. And, what is the alternative according to CMSWatch? Back big vendors like EMC, etc?