Watch that Stream become a Wave!

(this was cross-posted here)

Hello everyone!

We are excited to be working to support the Google Wave Federation Protocol in SAP StreamWork to let tools – collaboration or business – work seamlessly between any wave server, including Google Wave! With SAP StreamWork, we help business be more productive by letting people drive decisions together. Since our first BETA announcement a number of months ago we have been constantly compared to Google Wave, due to the real-time characteristics of the collaboration patterns we use. While products each have a different focus, they are also naturally complementary, and from the moment we saw Google Wave we were excited about the possibilities of connecting the two. This year’s Google I/O is our first opportunity to tell the story of how we plan to work collaboratively with Google, the Wave Federation Protocol, and OpenSocial.

For those of you who are not familiar with SAP StreamWork, it is aimed at transforming the way people work. When Google developed Google Wave it asked the question, “What would e-mail, instant messenger, and collaborative document creation look like if it were invented in the 21st century?” Similarly, SAP asked the question, “How can people solve important business decisions in a natural, fluid way, making every day more effective and fun?”. SAP StreamWork is a new on-demand, collaborative decision-making application that brings together people inside or outside your organization with information for fact-based decision-making and interactive business tools for collecting feedback, strategizing, and brainstorming, and is available today in a free version for anyone. It is also fully extensible by developers using open REST APIs. in a business context

Many of you make decisions every day, using a range of tools, from e-mail, to white boards, to shouting matches, to business applications and business intelligence. We get the work done, but it often becomes chaotic and hard to follow and can hinder clear decisions. Wave is modernizing collaborative communication; SAP is modernizing business. SAP StreamWork brings together people, information and proven business methodologies to help teams naturally and fluidly work toward goals and outcomes. Teams can assess situations together, develop strategies and make clear decisions, with a full record of what transpired. What better idea than to include anyone with a wave account?

So this is how we see you rolling in the near future: A supplier just notified you they couldn’t deliver materials that you need tomorrow to continue production. Crap! You bring that context fluidly into SAP StreamWork and assemble a team, bringing experts in that industry to see who might have capacity. Some of the people you know are registered as Google Wave users – instead of having to enter a different system, the business discussion complete with analytical and business tools show up in their wave inbox. It no longer matters where people are, or what tools they prefer – they can safely make decisions, in real-time, and directly drive the business applications that run the largest companies in the world. Now that feels like an improvement, yeah?

At this year’s Google I/O we will show the beginnings of this. But, what exactly, are we talking about?

Passing the Wave (Wave Federation):

At I/O we plan to show how SAP StreamWork has added a Wave Server to the platform to enable conversations between SAP StreamWork and other Wave servers. In SAP StreamWork a user starts an Activity where in they invite other participants to collaborate with them on a work activity like making a business decision. The group can then add the data and tools to guide them through the decision process. When an activity is created, StreamWork creates a new wave and federates the content of that Activity to the Wave server of any Wave users that may have been invited to that activity. With this integration Wave users will be able to seamlessly collaborate with SAP StreamWork users to work on the important decisions they need to make every day.

Go Go Gadget! (Gadget / Method Interoperability):

In order to ensure that content from an Activity or wave is properly federated between each other, we had to ensure that the content found in both systems was compatible with each other, and this included Wave Gadgets and StreamWork Methods. Wave Gadgets are shared programs that run inside waves, and are very comparable to StreamWork Methods which are business tools that run inside StreamWork Activities. Theproof of concept will show the compatibility between a StreamWork business method being federated over to Google Wave. We intend to create a generic compatibility between StreamWork Methods, and Wave and OpenSocial Gadgets so that developers will be able to ensure that gadgets or methods built for one system will work in the other.

These are the early days with our Wave Federation Protocol support and we are still in proof of concept stage, but we are excited to discover together with you how Wave, OpenSocial and StreamWork naturally extend each other, and we intend to deliver value to our customers, based on this work, within the next year. So please let us know your ideas, and we can figure out how the make the world a little more productive every day...

A new adventure is well underway...

A friend pointed out that I hadn't posted in a while, and I thought to myself, True, but I've started a lot of posts.  Most of them were brilliant.  But I've been busy -- with my new gig.

At the beginning of August I joined the Business Objects, an SAP company.  An unlikely move, perhaps, for those who know me.  But as I get a chance to talk more about what we're up to it will seem very likely, in fact exciting, a continuation of the stuff I've been working on for a while now.

I'm going to start blogging under the SAP Community Network machine, and cross-blogging here.   Careful... it doesn't work in Chrome yet.  So stay tuned.  Before long I'll have some software to sell you.

The Gun Problem: A Simple Fix

While reading a torrent of coverage over the recent Supreme Court gun control ruling, I again wondered why I wasn't benevolent dictator, since I think (as I often do) I have a simple fix to the problem. Of course this has nothing to do with software, but as people in software know, product managers are always certain they have the answer. So here goes:

1. If someone buys a gun, they are responsible for any crimes committed by that gun, unless the ownership is legally transferred to someone else.

2. If a gun owner loses a gun, they also loose their license to carry guns, forever.

Those familiar with the gun debate will quickly point out, But what about the millions of guns still on the street?

OK, two more rules:

3. If someone turns in a gun to police, and relinquishes their right to ever own a gun, they get $1000.

4. If someone "refers" an unlicensed gun that they are aware of, they get $500. per gun. That's right, point police to a house with 10 unlicensed guns, get $5000. if the guns are recovered.

Fear of punishment and market forces will take over, and the world will become a lot safer, with no freedoms compromised. Or at least so it seems from my sofa.

So what does this have to do with software? Nothing. Except that leveraging people's selfish impulses to help others, and empowering people (while keeping them accountable) is what the next wave of software is all about, and these seem to be good ways to get a lot of things done.

Books are a lot cheaper than Bombs

Or so said Rabih Alameddine on KQED this morning, when discussing his latest novel "The Hakawati," and his effort to help the Friends of the Lebanese Public Libraries by driving donations of books. This seemed to me an apt metaphor for effective SaaS marketing strategy.

Books foment ideas that are spread virally. The ideas spread in cafes and coffee houses, more people read the book, and in time a culture will evolve from the ideas in the books. That is, if the books are good.

Last week, Mike Maples offered sound investing advice: don't invest in a SaaS company who's mission is viral but who sells traditionally (top-down) in an enterprise. Top-down doesn't work for a viral-pitch product -- users won't use. Top down sales approaches are bombs -- they can pave a way into a company, but they can't win the hearts and minds.

I'm talking to a lot of prospective employers now, and one of the key things I try to ascertain is whether the products are built to serve the user, and how. And if not, how quickly I'd be able to change that. For the enterprise workplace to be transformed, the user will have to win, and that is the real mission for the next half decade.

This Me, not *that* Me!

If what you are is what you eat, this day it seems who you are depends on who you meet. Or which identity you point them to.

Yesterday, I was grabbing some coffee and an eggel at Hugo Cafe, and started talking to a woman who worked at a large SaaS company in San Francisco. Since it was a company I was interested in we talked a bit about their business model, and then I asked her if I could shoot her a note on LinkedIn. To which she replied, "How about Facebook? I prefer that, since it is the most up-to-date."

Hmmm.

Friends of mine on Facebook get to see updated pictures of my kids, with no relevance to my business life. Colleagues on LinkedIn get mapped to my "professional" self, with links to my blog, etc. On Facebook she would get the wrong Me.

Last week at the Consumerization of Software event a colleague was lamenting how he toned down his Facebook self, since you never knew who from his business life would stumble across it. Drunk pictures: gone. Fun stuff: 1/2 gone. Oh well.

Another colleague has slowed his Twitter use, since he really wants multiple channels. One for work, one for play. One channel simply doesn't work for him, and it is too bothersome to create multiple users (requiring, among other things, multiple email addresses).

I started to use Twitter to set my status in one place, and broadcast it to various networks. That was great for a few weeks until I understood Twitter's power as a messaging platform. Now I realize that I want to have conversations in Twitter, some that make no sense to my Facebook Friends. Options: de-link Twitter from my Facebook status, or limit my tweets?

With the explosion of social sites, we are stuck in a quandary: how to manage our several (or many) online selves? We struggle with this, lacking the grace that our children will inevitably have, born in an age of transparency. Here is what we clearly need:

• A way to define our various selves
• A way to manage content and information for each self
• A way to push the relevant information to the appropriate networks, sometimes to multiple accounts on a network
• No duplication of data (no one has time for this)
  

Oh, I have an elegant solution, by the way. I haven't decided whether to talk about it or just build it. Can anyone point me to a solution that exists out there already?

The Consumerization of Software

I spent a very pleasant afternoon at The Consumerization of Software conference held by SDForum and Accel Partners, exploring the thesis that enterprise software is becoming like consumer software. Can't disagree there.

Kevin Efrusy led us off on the Consumerization Thesis, which had some memorable points, including:

• A customer needs to understand the value in less than 1 minute, and get the benefit in less than 1 hour, or you are toast
  
• Ruthlessly limit scope, # of account touch points required, configuration options
• Businesses should focus on metrics that reflect customer success

I particularly like the first one, since it is testable and it rings true.

There were some nice takeaways, particularly in a panel titled "A View on Software from Wall Street." Mike Maples (from Maples Investments), speculated that in a few years in addition to traditional financial metrics, SaaS companies will be judged on their viral coefficient. Mike defined this simply as "How much indirect sales does one traditional sale beget?" That is, if I sell $100 of software, how many additional dollars in future sales will come in with no action from me? This could be in the form of additional user licenses, add-on modules, or simply referrals to new customers with the initial customer as the sales person. If the coefficient > 1, sales will multiply naturally, if it is less than 1, the difference will need to be made up in Marketing $$.

"don't respond to RFPs, don't respond to large banks." (in response to when to customize to get into enterprise accounts)

"we had a voting system on the web for features. we never had a product manager."

OK, a bit strident, and I don't entirely agree with the second point. But I completely agree with the overarching theme of simplicity and focus, and that rang true throughout the afternoon.

All in all, the consensus was clear: the enterprise is being consumerized. Thank goodness, I'm all for it. But maybe we should come up with a better term than consumerization. Anyone for C13N?

Human Easter Eggs (or Last Blast from the Past)

I found one more gem on my last day with BEA that I can't help but share. Dial back the clock to October 2005, when Plumtree was being acquired by BEA. BEA was figuring out what to call the products, which at the time were the "Plumtree Foundation," which was the base portal, and the "Plumtree Enterprise Web Suite," which included Collaboration, Analytics, and a bunch of other stuff.

The Naming Police at BEA arrived at new names that some felt were counterintuitive and difficult to say:

• AquaLogic Interaction (Plumtree Foundation) (aka ALI)
  
• AquaLogic User Interaction (Plumtree Enterprise Web Suite) (aka ALUI)
  

Since people kept asking what these new names meant, we elected to hold a contest to see who could write the best poem explaining the names. A writer on staff named Nate Loux, who I think of as Donald Barthelme in a cube, came up with my favorite submission, which I can only describe as brilliant. It is posted here.

We've all put Easter Eggs in software -- what delights me is the easter eggs we stumble across in the workplace. I think that is why a lot of us are in software -- yeah, we're geeks, but it is really about learning the expect the unexpected in your everyday work environment. While it may not be obvious that the poem was an easter egg, it should be obvious that creating an environment that rewards creativity produces the unexpected, and the unexpected is what makes work fun. Which brings me back to the beginning, or the end I should say, of what was Plumtree and then BEA.

A long long time ago...

As I was cleaning out my office this week, I came across the initial Plumtree master CDs, and bequeathed them to Joseph Stanko, who has been around for nearly as long and I knew would appreciate them. Not surprisingly, Joseph stuck it in his Windows box and tried to install it, which brought us some priceless old images:

The Installer Splash Screen



The Installer Options


And finally the home page of the product:


So, yes, the installer ran on a system ten years later, and came right up (with a few errors that aren't visible on this screen). Wow.

Quick story about the installer: I was the QA engineer in 1997, and tasked with creating the installer one week by my boss and CEO, Kirill Sheynkman. Being new to the world of the startup, I thought that was a soft goal. But that Saturday, at about 10 AM, Kirill called me at home to ask me where the installer was. I told him I wasn't finished. He told me to come to the office, and not leave until I was.

After realizing that he wasn't kidding, I came in, and ended up leaving at about 10 PM on Sunday, but learned a valuable lesson: don't kid around with commitments, especially with Kirill.

Monday morning he reviewed it with me in his office, and determined it was almost there, but needed two important changes: I needed to add a random large file to make it appear bigger on disk, and I needed to slow it down somehow -- it ran in about 15 seconds. As Kirill said after running it, "that didn't feel worth $30K, now did it?"

Lesson #2 learned, not bad for a weekend's work.

The next great land grab

Anyone remember the early days, when most domains were available? Then there were the squatters, then a marketplace, then the parkers, and still, to this days, friends of mine buy domains for amounts up to $5000.

And now there are the networks. I grabbed dmeyer on gmail early on, but with each new account (Twitter, friendfeed, etc.) there are new names to grab, better names, simpler names that imply you were an early mover to the technology.

But I'm seeing for the first time people madly registering names for things they are interested in, especially on Twitter. And it seems that these handles within a domain are becoming quite valuable. Will we be seeing a marketplace for them emerge? Already people are selling real estate on their twitter profiles. And others are suggesting that right after registering your domain name, you need to secure the same name on Twitter.

Fascinating, especially for a site that seems to be up about 50% of the time. Of course, I spent the morning searching for handles that were still available...

Preparing to leave the womb...

As I think about my last week of corporate employment for a while, and begin to figure out the best combination of web tools to manage my life, I've been making some observations:

• Google has become a bigger and bigger part of my life. I've been using their search for over 10 years, they grabbed my email about 4 years ago, I started blogging with them about a year ago. When enterprise customers asked me 3 years ago "What are you doing about Google?" I thought they were a bit confused, but now more and more of my friends starting companies use Google to run their offices. Recently I discovered Page Creator, a nice place to make a web landing page. And of course Google Analytics gives me the visibility I need into anything I do on the web. So how does this make me feel? Great. I want more, much more. But integrate the stuff, please. How long will I need to use an HTML widget to get analytics on my Google properties?
  
• Twitter is fun and useful. The main question I'm left with is how public to be. And when the site will be up.
• The critical question for the modern web presence... What is your information architecture? Yes, it is no different from creating a useful application. If you tweet your Facebook status, you know what I mean. If you struggle to decide what to include in your friendfeed, you know what I mean. I'm still putting one together, I'll let you all know what I come up with. But with the explosion of tools out there, it is hard to know which to use, but even harder to know the master data model behind them.

Next quest: who should I pay so I can talk on my mobile phone? Survey says: AT&T, get prepped for iPhone 3G. Gotta figure that out by Friday, last day in the womb.

Google Health, give me Crowd Health

So Google Health was just announced with great fanfare, and it seems everyone is racing into this business. Which is exciting. And daunting.

After entering the site, I half expected my life story to already be there. It wasn't, thankfully. But I can choose to import my records and choose who to share them with. And, theoretically, regain some control back from the medical establishment which seems so powerful these days.

A more liquid exchange of information between patient and establishment, governed by the patient, is a very enticing idea. But it's not what I ultimately want. I want to leverage the experiences of patients across the globe. I want Crowd Health.

Imagine if I could decide not only what to share with my health care providers, but what to share anonymously with the population at large? Imagine that such an opt-in tool was used by many people every day. Discoveries of people like you across the nation would be available immediately, when they might takes years to reach, or never reach you through your doctor.

Or perhaps that is too radical, since privacy is such a core concern for medical records. But how about integration with a tool like Geni, where I could share aspects of my medical records with my extended family. When a doctor asks me, "do you have cancer in the family?" I never know how accurate my answer is, since my family tends to keep these things private. Let alone more common things, like high blood pressure or cholesterol.

Ultimately web health records could provide consumers with more complete, more up-to-date, more trustworthy data to make decisions. Instead of pharmaceutical companies telling me what medications work best, my peers could, and I could analyze their data that proves it. Instead of genealogical guesswork I could make my personal health decisions based on facts. Now, that starts to get interesting. Google, please do no Evil, I see real potential here...

Sundays kill more men than bombs...

...or so Bukowski said. While he may have been referring to a deeper despair than having YouTube blocked at work, I think Charles (on a level even he wouldn't admit) felt something similar to today's office workers, feeling powerless within the confines of the corporate environment to really accomplish anything significant, at least compared to the creative abandon they feel outside of work, in the plush surroundings of the consumer web. Saturday, you make a movie from beginning to end in an hour. Sunday night you lay awake dreading the ERP system you need to confront on Monday to somehow enter a Purchase Order into that finance will approve.

Well, it just got a little easier for humankind, with some new releases from BEA Systems, Inc., by bringing some of that consumer magic one step closer to your office keyboard.

It sounds like a stretch, but it's not. I just looked at our internal deployment of AquaLogic Interaction 6.5, and I see this on my profile page:

Now how did that information get in there? From our CRM system. Would it be easy for me to query the CRM system everyday to monitor the deals? No. But one glance at my home page and I know that Brian closed the deal and its time to take him out for a beer.

That feels pretty modern.

But the most exciting thing about bringing social computing to the enterprise is watching where people take it. There will be a lot to talk about in the coming weeks and months, so stay tuned...

OpenSocial inching closer... but to what?

On January 25, Google released the 0.7 version of OpenSocial, detailed in the Release Notes published on their site. It is interesting what they prioritized enhancing in this version.

There is a drastically enhanced Person object. Excellent (I love people). This is described in the Release Notes as Standardized profile information fields, which makes sense, so multiple applications can leverage the same data. Or at least that's what I thought until I saw the fields available, which include:

Body Type

Fashion

Heroes

Scared Of

Turn Ons

You get the idea. Each of these has a specific structure, such as a comma-delimited string, or in the case of Smoker an ENUM including the VALUES "socially" and "regularly." I wonder if anyone would want to target ads to smokers. Oh wait... they actually only added 3 specific ENUMs (which I would have added when I really care about accuracy of the data), which are DRINKER, SMOKER, and GENDER. From an ad-centric perspective, each of those ENUMs smell like money.

Now if I were adding applications into this fabric, I'd want to attach my own data structures that other applications could leverage off of the profile. For example, I think that iLike has a much better idea of the appropriate structure for music preferences than OpenSocial. How about letting applications defined sections within the user profile? Ever hear of metadata? Maybe custom properties?

Ironically, in the Enterprise, the social fabric has to be more open. Yes, it has to be more secure, since data can be sacrosanct, but the Sales Regions I Care About in a CRM system will have a structure that the CRM system needs to articulate, not some master system deciding it needs to be in a comma-delimited-format, or as an ENUM including Idaho.

We are excited about OpenSocial, but ask the same thing of it that others are: please be Open. Let applications define their own data shapes on the social graph. Allow more interesting sets of people emerge than "Friends." This is important for it to be relevant in our increasingly social, increasingly modern workplaces.

As we map these concepts to the enterprise, we will be doing just that. And we are very excited about the possibilities, as are our customers...

OpenSocial and the Enterprise

Okay, we've heard a lot about Google's OpenSocial APIs, and clearly opinions vary, from unbridled excitement to downright skepticism from Tim O'Reilly, at least regarding what is available right now. But most of the commentary on the web has to do with the consumer space (not surprising), so what does this mean for the enterprise?

Let's start with what OpenSocial is today: it is a way for developers to write a social app (or micro-app) that plugs into any social "container" that supports the API, much like you would write a proprietary Facebook app to plug into Facebook. For people that have been involved in portals, it is analogous to the standard portlet APIs, such as WSRP or JSR-168, which let you write a portlet that works in any portal. Wow, that's exciting.

Well, it could be, but it isn't now, except for developers or startups trying to get presence in the consumer cloud. As Tim O'Reilly notes, it doesn't help the end user.

Most modern individuals have fragments of themselves in several social networks. We need a sort of broker that can figure out which applications can have access to which fragments in which networks. This way we don't need to repeat our information again and again but the value of the networks we join can be preserved effectively, and help the knowledge worker in the enterprise.

We've talked about AquaLogic Pathways, and how it maintains an activity graph of interactions in systems, both explicit and implicit. This graph helps people find people as well as information. This implicit social network could certainly benefit from networks in the cloud -- if you and I work together but are also friends on Facebook, our connection is also stronger in the enterprise, and our coworkers should be able to find me through you and you through me.

But now we're talking about the enterprise, where the rules are different. Some information is sensitive, some relationships are only for certain people to know about. Who "shares" what with whom can be complex. And almost none of this, for now, will be shared with the networks in the cloud.

So here is what we need: give us a data and social bridge from the cloud to the enterprise, so users can self-select what to "share" inwards. Enterprise systems can leverage the information it deems reliable (as discussed by Mark Cuban), which can make the enterprise more fun and more effective. This bridge will have to address basic things like identity mapping, and let users connect their various consumer systems for general, unified access by either cloud applications or enterprise applications. Let the enterprise pull data in today, and at some point it will be comfortable to push data out.

APIs can be a nice start, but design them for the use cases that empower the participant. I decide what I share on Facebook (even though I can't figure out how to hide all of those annoying zombies) and that is why Facebook is powerful and popular. Build me a bridge between systems, and I'll probably cross it. If the bridge goes to the enterprise, some of the energy and playfulness will come along as well.

They're all good, Bill

Bill Roth just provocatively posted that maybe all tags aren't good. I came up with a brilliant response:

They're all good, Bill. Really, they are.

The main problem with the alternative, is, well, the alternative. The alternative to the "false positive" problem is the idea that there are good descriptors and bad descriptors. There just aren't.

Let's describe Bill. Maybe developer tools, eclipse, BEA, blogger, these would all be good tags. But what about stagehand, actor, marquette tribune, bucky badger? It would depend on who you're talking with. If you're talking to Bill's college buddies, maybe the latter tags would be a much easier way to find him.

If one person tags an object, it is a good way for that same person to find it again, and that is enough. To thrive in the enterprise, you need to leverage people's selfish tendencies -- give them a way to get their job done easier. Whatever tags they use for that occasion, someone, even if it is only them, will benefit.

Of course the real enterprise needs some precautions, such as tagging blacklists, reserved words, etc., and Pathways can do all of that.

But then what about all of that noise? Won't it make the "real" tags disappear? Nope. Once there are a bunch of tags in the system, if people view the top 50 or top 100 in their tag cloud, they will only see the often-used tags, and the important (judged by ActivityRank) tags. The only times the "long tail" tags will show up if the search is so targeted that they rise to the top. And I can always use Views to see how a specific set of people have tagged it. If I am interested in Developer Tools, I might want to see the world with Bill Roth's view. Or maybe my son's. He's only two and a half, but that new generation seems to have something to say, even if I don't always understand him. His friends do, and those tags might help him show them the way.

Okay, maybe that was a stretch. But we have definitely found that if we add information in this seemingly chaotic way, we can reduce the chaos. No tag is bad, Bill. Convinced?

Pages has left the building...

AquaLogic Pages is now Generally Available, folks. Go and
Get It!

The world of work has just gotten a little bit easier...

Architecting for Participation

I was scanning feeds on Rojo last night, and saw this post about Steven Bao, and the Facebook apps he has created. He is 14. He's a freshman in high school.

What languages does he know? Java? Nope. But he knows PHP and MySQL, plus JavaScript and the rest... and he's learning C++. And of course he has his own company. At that point in my life I was trying a new skateboard trick, unsuccessfully.

Then I read a note about MySpace versus Facebook on TechCrunch, reinforcing the obvious.

A hallmark of Web 2.0 is that it is participatory, and as we delve into the enterprise we need to pay careful attention to this, not just from a feature/function perspective, but from an architecture perspective. Poll the enterprise today, and Java and .NET will be strong, poll the people hired in the last two years, and the LAMP stack and browser-side programming will show a steep rise. And if freshmen in high school are tooling away in these languages, just think what the work force will be like 5 years from now. All purveyors of Web 2.0 technology in the enterprise should take notice.

And what should the APIs give access to? Everything. If you're afraid of people doing themselves harm with your APIs, then either you don't have respect for people, or you have a bad architecture. Here's an idea: document the interfaces, and let people invent. If you seek to control the applications people build with your platform, then you are almost extinct.

Some people reading this will think he doesn't get it -- the things that matter in the enterprise are security, robustness, things not available in these new architectures. To you I say that you don't get it, innovations will fill the void, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. Embrace the architectures of participation, because you don't want to build for the past. Building for the future means being open, giving a big-ol bear hug to the emergent stuff on the web, and doing the heavy lifting to find ways for it to meet the needs of the enterprise. Because people will find a way to get their jobs done... either with or without the technology that their company wishes they would use.

Using Web 2.0 in the Enterprise today...

On Wednesday at the OReillly's Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco, I joined Ross Mayfield, Joe Schueller and Michael Lenz at a panel titled Web 2.0 for the Enterprise: What Corporations Really Want and Use.

It was an interesting discussion, reported on by InfoWorld and InternetNews, and the questions indicated how much companies are hungry for practical guidance on adopting these modern tools within workplaces that might be, well, resistant.

When we were discussing the propensity of people to purchase wiki software with their credit card to begin collaborating without corporate approval, it was widely hailed as positive. The question is, how do you strike a balance? Ross, of course, didn't mind the credit card purchases. Michael, on the other hand, said he wanted to encourage people to use new tools, but instead of charge their credit card, it would be better to put it towards a common pool so IT could fund the right solutions to the problem.

That seems to put us back where we started, doesn't it?

When we were discussing Ensemble with an IT executive recently, he was intrigued, saying that he loved it at the same time they hated it. He desperately needed to wrap his arms around all of the rogue web applications in his enterprise without changing the way his people worked, and he was thrilled that it could do just that. After all, the minute you try to control people, they will find another way using consumer tools. But he worried about the air of legitimacy Ensemble would give these tools. In other words, while he was very pro-wiki, there were other rogue efforts he was trying to constrain, and having Ensemble made it harder to argue against them. After all, they were safe now, weren't they?

I say let your employees do what makes them productive, just give yourself the tools to govern and manage it. In other words, don't prevent people from misbehaving, but make sure that they are accountable when they do misbehave. Because in general, people surprise us in positive ways, especially when we do what we can to make their jobs more fun, or at least... less frustrating.

Have will, find way

In a recent study by McKinsey it seems that Web 2.0 adoption is being thwarted by nervous executives who fear two things:

IT ceding control

Disruption of the "knowledge economy"

IT ceding control...

This thorough study found that 33% of executives invest in wikis, 32% invest in blogs, while just 21% invest in "mash-ups." First of all, those numbers are big. Secondly, often there is more deployed than management thinks: almost no executive knows which wikis are out there. When we did a research roadshow in 2005 we asked companies how many unmanaged web applications were in their enterprise. Typically, people said they had very few. Then, we went through category after category (including wikis) and found that the average company had around 100 unmanaged web apps.

The article notes:

Jacques Bughin: "The reason why blogs and wikis, in particular, aren't well used is that companies are still afraid," he posits. "How do you basically regulate how to contribute?" He also thinks the wisdom of crowds isn't always sharp and that companies are worried about getting bad information on a collaborative document, such as a wiki.

The basics of these problems have been solved in a lot of wiki platforms (import your users from LDAP, use security, etc.). The remainder of the control problems are solved by Ensemble. As for getting bad information out of a collaborative document, it all comes back to traceability. If you know who edited what, when, using a page version history as well as a component version history you can easily solve this problem (Pages).

Disruption of the "knowledge economy"...

The conceit here is that since people are valued for their knowledge, recording their knowledge in a wiki threatens their status, so they won't contribute. Solution: celebrate the contributers, and let the others leave the company. Successful organizations of the future will be transparent, the idea people will be celebrated, and the knowledge hoarders will simply have no place. The first step? Put together the right feedback mechanisms to determine who is really valuable (in terms of contributing knowledge) in your organization. Yes, maybe this is a plug for Pathways.

Widget insertion, oh yeah...

Tech Crunch posted an article today on Widget Publishing, noting "Getting a widget onto a website, whether its a blog or a MySpace page or anything else, is a bit of a pain." And the "pain" is having to copy a snippet of javascript onto your web page. The solution discussed is a way to email widgets around to make the process easier.

Okay, that might constitute pain on the web, but that is
Xanadu in the enterprise. In the enterprise, as we know, widget insertion generally requires cracking open an IDE.

The exciting thing is the explosion of activity for Web widgets. Widgets aren't new. Anyone who ever played with Microsoft's 1997 foray into Active Desktop will find this area familiar. But with this secondary explosion comes evolving standards, such as W3C's Widget working draft, as well as evolving technologies, such as ATOM and RSS.

Ensemble brings the web ease into the enterprise. Just as you copy and paste widgets into your blog, now you can do it into any enterprise web site, replete with security and governance.

Next year you will be able to consume everything in your enterprise as if it is RSS and GData, in a way that makes IT calm and encouraging. I just hope they don't start clogging my email...