Conversationware

It’s Funny when you see someone try to recall an email.

Of course, the recall function serves only to highlight the original email to be read more closely, just to see where the rickett has been dropped, and how loud the clang was.

Another example of a terrible email mistake here at email tide

In my mind’s eye I can now see lots of Journalists flicking through a ‘deed poll’ search on google - seeing how much it would cost to change their name to Gordon Brown.

Don’t do it Jane!

There are three Matt Lambert’s in the UK around the technology field, one at Microsoft and one at a telecoms company. So, I do get voicemails from people I’ve never heard of every now and again….although nothing interesting seemlingly. But the more people you are ‘acquainted’ with, the less well you might know them, and this is going to happen more often.

In the comments in the linked article, there is a Thunderbird plugin that is designed with the ‘are you sure you want to send this’ button built in. Not bad, but possibly subject to the similar address blindness after a while.

What this highlights (again) is the fact that Email is a fairly blunt tool with which to be handling sensitive documents.

Surely there must be some enterprise 2.0 software that could handle a central repository, and sharing mechanism for messages, without overloading the user with yet more passwords. It makes you wonder if any other legal companies have gone with Google Docs for this?

Is Sharepoint the right vehicle - I’ve heard varying reports. I’ve got another Avanquest training session on this next week, perhaps it will sink in this time.

Talking of Passwords, methinks it is worth another look at OpenID again.

Something is wrong with Presence.

I harp on about this technology, and I keep looking around to see whether I can be proved wrong.

So, I was grateful to Mike Gotta (again) for pointing to this audio interview (48MB, 50 Min) with one of the founding fathers of Presence, Peter St-Andre with Lee Dryburgh, who happens to be organising a Unified Communications event in the spring, Ecomm2008

I do like being proved wrong, although friends and family may disagree, but my problem with Presence is still that it doesn’t seem scalable beyond immediate and close relationships.

Although very entertaining, and well worth the (your) time, I’m not sure the interview answered all my questions.

Ok, here’s the beef.

The more people I know, the more likely I am to be interrupted at someone elses convenience. 

On the basis that I don’t want to micro-manage my availability between constantly changing relationships with all the people I know, I just can’t make it work.

I initially equated Presence with ‘Busy Lamp Field’.

This was a quaint term used to describe the lights on a key telephone system handset, that lit when someone lifted their phone handset. As an early key system evangelist I thought this ‘Presence’ was going to be great.

Of course, the supposition turned out to be wrong. Despite people desperately wanting it to work (including me). Busy Lamp Fields are possibly why ‘phone’ people are very keen on this tech, but BLF and IM are not the same!

Whilst a ‘lit lamp’ told someone I was on the phone, and helped them know ‘not to try calling me’ (note, try) - when the lamp wasn’t lit, it DID NOT mean I was definitely at my desk and available to talk.

Whereas, the blinking IM message says that until you reply, you’re being ignorant. The refusal to communicate is in broad daylight.

Thus, there is an emotional blackmail being set, and to my mind that is exactly why people don’t buy into it.

It almost pains me to say it, but telephone presence is more useful to the recipient than desk based presence, in that there is no obligation to interact.

Another problem exists and it is this.

As a real time communication, there are also less facilities than asynchronous communication. This question of synchronous vs asynchronous came up in the podcast also, but indirectly.

So, the time to compose a considered and consultative response just isn’t there in real time conversation.

You can’t forward an IM for consideration by someone to contribute (with any certainty someone is going to be there right now!)

And, unlike other web based communication, the conversation isn’t discoverable (indexed) and won’t contribute to the knowledge base of the rest of the community. 

I find it interesting that the chap who first got me thinking on the Presence subject, Alec Saunders, has his company, Iotum, pioneering another communications medium - the multiparty conference call. 

Interesting because the conference call, whosoever has one, is booked in advance, and has a subject. It is a viable alternative to Presence . The permission factor is key for me. I’m not yet sure whether this has a significance on Alec’s thoughts on his New Presence…dot dot dot.

So, let’s have an invite…and acceptance….to talk about a subject….at a particular time, or joint circumstance.

If we have agreed to talk on a subject, and we’ve both concurrently indicated we’re in free mode, THEN let the availability be shown. It’s better than trying to reclassify everyone I know.

In my view, Presence missed a step, the equivalent of the ringing phone invitation.

I kept hearing about Twitter, but to be frank, things are busy enough without learning anything new. But, I suppose there is nothing new about having to learn something else in web software land.

So, here I am

https://twitter.com/mattlambert

I follow only one person so far (1 hour and counting), and that’s because they linked to this blog with a twitter post, so I knew where to find them.

Ok, I admit, being in a conversation on your own is no fun for me - so if you’re reading, why not sign up? It’s free, takes about 10 minutes to discover the long and short of it all.

The premise is that you can keep up to date with people’s stuff, but only as and when its convenient for you, not for them.

It’s like IM but shorter and not so interruptive. This is a very important point for us Brits who, even if you’re ‘friended’ via instant messaging, won’t presume to interrupt even if your presence status is ‘green’ unless you’re very best of buddies.

I can see it would be a better form of ‘presence’ - much more contextual.

Ultimately, the fact I work remotely (no word reversal jokes huh), made the decision, as Twitter can apparently resemble being in an office by letting you pick up on ambient information without having to join in.

It even interfaces through your gtalk client and ping you to remind you to add a sentence and to make things easier.

Perhaps you can tell me if you’ve already had a go, or if you can add to the ‘business case’? I may have to update my Communications Mindmap

Why spend time, sweat and tears writing your predictions for the coming year.

Relax in your armchair instead, with your google persistent search turned on for the first week in January, and peruse until you find some you agree with - then link to them.

My interest is in how communications can help with business, in all senses of the word and to my mind, the best on the subject is a great article by Shomik Banerjee summarising 2007 and looking at 2008 for enterprise communications. Really good job.

Of course, I have to comment, or it’s not worth linking

Shomik doesn’t say if the headlined views below are in order of importance, or likelihood;

• A) PBX is passé, ‘UC’ is the buzzterm
• B) The Focus Market for Enterprise Telephony is Shifting to SMB
• C) Enterprise Mobility is ‘Hot’
• D) Collaboration Gains Fresh Impetus
• E) SOA and Web Services Gain Traction
• F) Open Source and Open System Gain Mindshare

In terms of market impact, I would have them in roughly the reverse order.

(maybe not by the end of 2008 though)

Another good read is by Charlie Bess on the EDS fellows ‘next big thing blog’. I like the Green IT idea, and I guess this is just an acceleration of the virtualization movement, which has been manic paced in any event.

Feel free to link to others in the comments!

The phrase “mobile presence” is a misnomer, but even so, there should be more done about applications sharing information as to whether someone is currently “on the phone” or not.

As difficult as it already is to share IPT desktop phone status information between organisations - very early days - it is even less common to be able to determine someone’s mobile phone status electronically.

It occurs to me that this situation is unlikely to improve.

The issue is this

• If people are shown to be already on the phone - people won’t call to find out. Thus, there is likely to be a corresponding drop in telephone calls, voicemail leaving and voicemail access, and therefore call revenue.
• Presence reduces call revenues

So, what hope for ubiquitous presence information?

There is a hope if the (software?) application that generates the call in the first place, then makes that information available for the duration of the call.

For instance

IPT software commonly redirects incoming calls to people not at their desk. Do those IPT software systems then show someone as ‘busy, mobile’ for the duration of the call? I’m betting not many of them do.

If the trunk to trunk remains connected, device busy status should be simple shouldn’t it?

And therefore, with the right application development, if all incoming calls are routed through a central location, then another important UC element could be delivered.

What’s left then, is to generate ‘outgoing’ calls from a mobile device through a linked application.

Alcatel’s My Teamwork solution facilitates that, but perhaps it should be a facility of some mobile operating system as well.

Google Android  and Grand Central anyone?

Then, there is the issue of being out of service or ’switched off’….it goes on, this search for the UC holy grail.

Exposing a combined desk and telephone presence is like giving out your front door keys.

So, are your parents and best friends welcome around at ANY time?

The likelihood is that even if they have keys, the visit would still be agreed in advance. Either that, or perhaps you’d have a standing arrangement for a certain day of the week.

Work is a bit like that standing arrangement, a pact between colleagues to be available

But does your availability pact extend to everyone in your business, to any more people than you’re sharing projects with at that time, your immediate teams?

Does your being available ’depend’?

Because answering ’depends’ could mean you need to ‘manage’ your presence, and imagine setting presence when putting the kettle on.

So, even if someone is shown to be at their desk and not on the phone, they might not answer your phonecall…..it depends on

• What they’re doing,
• Who YOU are
• What you want to talk about.

Arranging conversations in advance 

My current experience is that even with presence tools, because they don’t automatically answer the above questions, we’re more often arranging conversations in advance.

there is an invitation…..then permission…for you to talk to them at a time, about something.

Most people email an invitation - but this is unrelated to real time communications and there has to be a better way than that. 

Even a ringing phone is an invitation, but ok, it’s basic, and the trouble with a voice invitation is that by the time you’ve asked, you’re already speaking to them. As an aside, having one dimensional presence tools does lend more weight to voicemail, which is probably the best invite to speak - if you use voicemail properly that is.

Presence on it’s own won’t replace voicemail

But back to the main point. Isn’t sending invitations much simpler than managing presence? I think it could be.

Would you turn up to your customer’s office without arranging it in advance?

And so, therefore, is presence the wrong tool for anything other than close relationships, which already have an element of assumed permission?

–

Some other people’s posts on presence

Collaboration Loop (again) article on presence interoperability

Melanie argues that this is the holy grail for UC, but as you can guess from the title of this post, I’m not ‘holy’ convinced (groan)

Yes, the customer is king, and I would definitely love to see callcentre skillsets aggregated and shown online so that I could click to talk at my own convenience, but other work relationships are more complicated than that.

Alec of Iotum was the first to make me think about availability instead of just presence.

My understanding is that availability is ’presence’ with an overlay, which means that the questions - “Am I at my desk, am I on the phone”…should be supplemented with;

“do I want to talk to you” (right now) 

- Availability does need that vital permission component -

But that’s my own interpretation and words

Dan York argues that presence is critical, but doesn’t necessarily relate it to a telephone call, as he sees voice calls declining in importance.

I very much agree that voice is less useful than it used to be - but for some additional reasons, it deserves a future post.

Presence will be critical, but only once this permission requirement is worked out, and it needs something new, a better way to initiate and manage a conversation. It should definitely be conditional.

I thought it would be a good idea to look for Sharepoint success stories.

An old colleague - sorry Roger, the phrase nearly works both ways - was fired up about the capabilities of Sharepoint 2007, and so I wanted more evidence.

Google search for ‘Sharepoint success story’ and the first result is from HP, a re-assuringly titled ”

Microsoft Office SharePoint Server Success Stories

First in the list? Alberta Pensions Administration Corporation (APA)

The result?

Pants. Not available….are they using Sharepoint? See below

Sorry, we were unable to find the Enterprise Library page you were looking for.  It’s possible that this page is no longer available.

The Enterprise Library provides the most current Enterprise marketing content available.

To make another Enterprise Library selection, click here

The second link is available - but doesn’t mention Sharepoint, and the third doesn’t exist at all (webpage not found) and so on.

I spotted a familiar UK name example at the bottom of the list, Wiltshire Constabulary, - but that link puts me through to an index of case studies….which doesn’t include Wiltshire Constabulary. Grief.

Perhaps there could be an arrest warrant issued soon…please?

In the interests of balance, there is the Microsoft customer evidence site - but there is a large amount of will do, plans to, intends to - type language.

I’ll be interested to see what transpires in this, the third incarnation of Sharepoint. How much longer will companies wait for the finished article.

Lastly, I saw this post from collaboration loop, which seems to ask many of the questions that I also have - without too many answers yet.

The questions:

Is SharePoint a Web 2.0 platform? Is SharePoint a content management system? Is SharePoint a workflow manager? Is SharePoint a social computing platform? Or is SharePoint a portal to other applications?

(I’m not sure why I link to Collaboration Loop, as comments don’t seem to be published on their site anymore. It’s a bit like being lectured instead of having a conversation :-))

Anyhow, The Answer:

Well…the answer to all of these questions is a conditional “yes.” SharePoint does have the capabilities to function in all these roles.

But - the article’s point then extends to the fact that it isn’t best of breed in any area, and is partnering with best of breed in multiple disciplines to deliver the goods. For how long will that last, and how does a customer company make a decision. I wonder.

I caught sight of a post by chip griffin, arguing that the stuff he saw at the defrag conference - which seems to be a collaboration technology show - wasn’t compelling enough to replace email.

Email is simple and ubiquitous, so why replace it. I think that’s a contentious point - and probably purposefully so. These bloggers eh, always stirring the pot. As if I didn’t come across his missive through RSS.

But Chip looks from the point of view of a user - and I happen to agree with that point. Complicated isn’t good.

My own view is that email is great when it’s one to one, and when the extent of the interaction is easily defined. Question - Answer - Done.

But Email can go horribly wrong where there are multiple parties, or where an ongoing conversation is required.

So - what problems are there with email? Here’s a few I can think of, feel free to suggest more.

1. Where can I look to see progress around a topic that involves a few of us - where can anyone look to see progress? I know….lets send another email and ask.
2. Email is fraught with the following problem: If I email you with a  question about the project and you haven’t responded - who’s responsibility is it that the action didn’t get done? It’s mine of course….but email blurs the lines and makes it difficult. “He didn’t get back to me” is something you hear over and over
3. Email hides what is important, and gives you what is urgent (your newest emails) instead.
4. If someone joins the conversation late, where can they look to get up to speed

Have I missed anything?

In short, I don’t think the email problem is actually a myth, but just what we do about it isn’t exactly clear. I thought it was going to be SharePoint - but from what I read, the jury is still out there too.

There are no shortage of new innovative companies looking at the issue. Anything topic based catches the eye. From that acquisition of Parlano, perhaps Microsoft still think there is more work to be done around collaboration too.

At the moment, presence is a bit like opening a christmas package to find some bits and a pot of glue.

And, there are pieces missing. Even when you’ve been using presence for a while, something just doesn’t feel right.

Here’s the thing -

I don’t care who you are (sorry mother), there are times when I don’t want to talk to you, at that moment.

Conversely, it might vary, depending on why you need to talk to me….I’m becoming a master of the obvious.

IF THEN EQUALS

So - presence ’status’ should be conditional upon what you want to talk to me about

Send an invitation to converse (I know that’s what a ringing phone is), but send it with the subject - and if you get an affirmative response, ‘WE’ can then go about deciding on the best method and time to do it.

By WE, of course I mean clever software that AUTOMATICALLY detects when we both can and would do it.

The only additional fluff could be with the level of urgency, or importance - I’m not sure which, but probably the latter -  to be attached by both the invitee and respondee to the subject, and that should be 1,2,3 or maybe 4.

The final requirement is that when we do get to speak, all of the items we’ve hitherto agreed to speak about are listed on a screen, which means we can make notes and either tick them off or agree to invite someone else into the subject.

The lower the combined importance numbers, the higher in the list the subject goes.

You know what, it makes much more sense than ‘ringing’ someone without knowing beforehand whether its a good subject, or time.

I do have deja vu at this point. So maybe this is something I’ve already seen - but if so, then it needs more publicity so that I can remember it better…..so link back here.

I’m minded of the following.

Albert Einstein quote - If A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut

When we speak, in business, we are (usually) looking to achieve something.

UC technology helps us achieve more stuff, allowing us to speak to each other when we’re not in the same room, and by giving us extra tools like email attachments and multiperson multimedia conferencing to speed up the process.

When we communicate, if we can’t instantly move things on to completion, then we’re entering into an ongoing conversation…..and that could span days, months and even years.

These days, we have more of them, and they include more people

The thing is, in itself, UC doesn’t help all that much with the better organising of our multiplying conversations (meaning activities in common) - it more often means we just have more and richer ways of having them.

Even with all the tools being easier to use, you realise that the conversations still have to happen, and that there is loads still to do. You often can’t do more than one thing at once (fellas), so we have to get smarter, or at least incorporate tools that make us look that way.

For instance, Google desktop search makes me look good, for free, so thanks goes to them.

Similarly, being able to see at a glance which conversations have moved on whilst you were busy, or absent, and more usefully, being able to dip into colleagues’ previous conversations, is the promise of Parlano - which is soon to be incorporated into the Microsoft promise too blog by Nick Fera, the boss. Congratulations to them . I’m looking forward to seeing that as part of OCS.