Archive for Enterprise Software

Paul Graham on Enterprise 2.0

Paul Graham from Y Combinator posts a list of ideas that his investment firm would like to fund, and Enterprise 2.0 makes the list at Number 5:

5. Enterprise software 2.0. Enterprise software companies sell bad software for huge amounts of money. They get away with it for a variety of reasons that link together to form a sort of protective wall. But the software world is changing. I suspect that if you study different parts of the enterprise software business (not just what the software does, but more importantly, how it’s sold) you’ll find parts that could be picked off by startups.

That last point — that it’s not as much about what the software does, but how it’s sold — was a huge motivator for us when we started Infovark. One of our most popular posts to date is Emergence in the Enterprise — a rant that was a direct result of me spending far too long as part of the Enterprise Software Sales Cycle.

Power and money are concentrated at the top of the org chart, so naturally vendors want to sell to senior management.  After all, from a cost-of-sales perspective, you make higher profits by making only one sale for 12 million dollars than you do making 24 sales for a half million each. That’s surely good for your business.

But the reality is that Enterprise 2.0 can’t deliver much value at the top of the org chart. It’s the process changes and cultural change that delivers value. Unless you can convince the C-Level guys to force everyone else to come along for the ride, the cultural change necessary won’t occur. And as Dean says, if top-down “thou shalt” approaches to change management worked, there wouldn’t be any need for Enterprise 2.0… Enterprise 1.0 would do the job.

That’s why we’re firmly focused at the bottom of the org chart.

(We finally managed to get our product page up — if you’d like to find our more about how Infovark is planning to help, you can check it out here. )

Two Kinds of Enterprise Software

Gordon’s public confession last week stuck a chord with me.

I think the term “enterprise software” is being misused. Two very different kinds of software are being conflated.

The first kind of enterprise software is sold to an organization for the purpose of managing or maintaining the organization itself. This is your classic enterprise software: CRM, ERP, EDRM, ECM, etc. (The acronyms are a dead giveaway.) While this kind of software helps to power the enterprise, it’s not actually used by the whole organization. Instead, its users form the internal departments that keep the organization running, like accounting, finance, human resources, and operations. It’s part of corporate infrastructure.

The second kind of enterprise software is general business tools. I’d put spreadsheets, word processors, and presentation software in this category. These tools serve the needs of ordinary business users. They can be considered enterprise software only in the sense that everyone in an enterprise uses them.

All Giants Start Small

It’s a tribute to Microsoft that they so thoroughly dominate this second category with Microsoft Office that we’ve forgotten that these business applications were once sold directly to consumers as stand-alone products. It was only after Excel, PowerPoint, Access and others achieved near ubiquity that they were bundled together and sold to CIOs and IT departments under enterprise licenses.

Before the office suite existed, before employees began to assume that their employers would provide these common tools as a matter of course, Microsoft had to convince individual desk jockeys of the merits of each application. They had to drive adoption by delighting individual consumers. They had to win hearts and minds one business professional at a time.

Does that sound familiar? Enterprise 2.0 is about introducing a new set of general-purpose business applications to knowledge workers everywhere. To realize the benefits of these new collaborative tools, you have to get everyone — not just a few folks in internal departments — to use them. And that requires training and cultural change. It’s a big investment in something that’s not been proven yet.

Eggs in a Basket

Even if your organization is willing to try these new tools, which ones should it pick? There are a lot of vendors out there. The costs of choosing the wrong one are high: You have to implement another system, train everyone again, and still make that cultural adjustment. Only now your coworkers are justifiably cynical about the project. The toughest challenge is overcoming the last project’s failure.

Lowering the cost of failure is the best way to encourage innovation. Companies need a way to test new tools cheaply and easily.

Many of these E2.0 applications require a a fair bit of infrastructure, planning, and governance to operate. Some organizations will feel comfortable trying a hosted service, which lowers the costs associated with trying something new. Others may be concerned about letting their information go outside the firewall. And many hosted solutions don’t provide tools or services that would allow an organization to switch providers at will. So with either approach, lock-in can be a problem. Companies have gotten burned in the past.

All this means that knowledge workers that want E2.0 tools have to fight a series of internal battles over priorities, budget, and culture before they can begin experimenting. Or they have to find a way to work around the problem.

Let a Million Flowers Bloom

Right now, there are computers hidden under people’s desks in organizations all over the world running wikis, blogs, chat servers, and all sorts of interesting E2.0 applications. This is where the real experimentation will happen. There are risk-takers in even in the stodgiest organizations. These individuals are willing to try new things, as long as the personal investment isn’t too steep.

So to get E2.0 into the enterprise, you need applications that can be installed on any laptop or workstation. They can’t rely on a system administrator or an IT services group. They won’t run in a server room, isolated from competing applications. They have to give immediate benefits to the knowledge worker that’s taking the leap of faith. The application has to fall within an individual’s budget, both in terms of time and money. The application has to interoperate with the other tools used by business professionals. And it should be as easy to get the data out as to put the data in.

If it works for that one early adopter, the application will spread to others in the organization. It will compete with other solutions for time and attention, just like in the old days when there were dozens of different word processing solutions. Maybe one will eventually win out. Or maybe you’ll find a handful of competitors, each strong in its own way.

But we’re not there yet; we’re still in the experimenting phase. And when you’re experimenting, it’s best to start small: One computer, one user. Then a small team. Next a large team, then a department. That’s what we mean by emergence.

After a time, you’ll see those successful applications incorporated into office suites and absorbed into corporate culture. Corporate IT will buy enterprise licenses for them. People will begin taking them for granted. And then we’ll start talking about the next big thing.

Enterprise 2.0: What’s up with Google?

One of the stranger keynotes at the recent Enterprise 2.0 conference was given by Rishi Chandra, the Product Director for Google Enterprise. I expected the head of Google’s Enterprise division to spend his time talking about Google Docs, GTalk, Gmail for the enterprise, the recent launch of Google Sites, or any of the half dozen or so applications Google offers. Instead, he spent nearly all his time talking about the benefits of storage in the cloud.

Many attendees at the conference shrugged. They’d heard the cloud pitch from Google before. But the talk struck me as odd for a few reasons:

  1. Storage in the cloud is an outsourcing play targeted at CIOs and IT department heads, but the Enterprise 2.0 conference is focused on bringing Web 2.0 tools to typical knowledge workers.
  2. Storage in the cloud is all about outsourcing your datacenter. That’s great from a bottom-line cost reduction perspective, but Enterprise 2.0 is about the top line — making employees more productive.

Maybe Google’s working on something cool they can’t talk about yet. Or maybe Google doesn’t have a real Enterprise 2.0 story. Yet for some reason, Google decided to show up at the conference anyway, and talk about infrastructure.
Microsoft, IBM and Sun were all there, on hand to show off their social computing solutions. What’s up with Google?

The Millenial Bug

One of the recurring themes at E2.0 Last week was the notion of Generational Adoption. It’s the idea that Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y all had an innate relationship with various ways of working, and that these different work habits are a major factor in the adoption of new technology. Jay Hariani at the e2.oh blog has a nice wrap up of the generational adoption meme. Since then, Ross Mayfield, Jeff Nolan, and Larry Dignan have all chimed in, with various cases for and against.

I was lucky enough to share a drink last week with with Rob Salkowitz, Author of Generation Blend: Managing Across the Technology Age Gap, who was presenting at the E2.0 conference. I haven’t read Rob’s book yet, but In the wake of our conversation, I am definitely going to check it out. (Venkat’s Review over on RibbonFarm is also a good read).

The Millenials Are Coming is the new Y2K Bug

I have big problems with using the generational argument to drive adoption of Enterprise 2.0. It feels like another vendor-inspired bogeyman designed to convince companies to buy heaps of software they don’t need. (Install our compliance software or Sarbanes-Oxley will get you!)

The notion that the millennials are going to “demand” some kind of “Facebook” to do their work is just plain rubbish. Think about when you joined the workforce. What exactly did you demand?

When I first left school for the workforce, I wasn’t in a position to demand anything. It took me five years of working within the system before I realized which parts were broken. And it was only because I’d put in the time working within the system that I was trusted to actually influence things a bit.

Generational change happens gradually. There’s not going to be some giant “MySpace Revolution” where “The Kids” take over with their externally hosted collaborative tools. Instead, these people will join the workplace as wide-eyed and impressionable new starters, and they’ll do their best to work within the framework that they are given with the tools that are allocated to them. Then, slowly, their own ideas will become part of the way people work, including their favorite tools and technologies.

Sure, the generational issue is interesting from an anthropological perspective. It’s indicative of a lot of things, most notably progress in society. But as a call to arms for business to rush out and spend cash on some new-fangled social media tool for your enterprise, it leaves a lot to be desired.

(But hey, what would I know. I’m just a disgruntled Gen X’er who has no respect for authority, right?)