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.

As yet another social network buzz is starting to die down…..

A recap on ‘what’s happened so far’

Various forms of electronic communication have been invented.

The key aspect to all of them. Asynchronous.

We only have one piece of attention to give at any one moment, and so, asynchronous technology gives us massive productivity benefits - conversations can be carried out over a period, whilst doing other things.

This is true of

• Email,
• IM,
• Blogs,
• Wikis,
• Social networks 

Electronic conversations are also much more powerful because they’re written down, - searchable, discoverable, interactive whilst being less sensitive to time, (timefree)

BUT - the crucial piece is that none of this software truly yet delivers a full conversation electronically.

For all of the marketing sector telling us that they are having conversations with their audience with their blogs - the reality feels more like they are making a ‘presentation’.

A blog is like a presentation in that someone makes their point, and the audience can comment or ask questions afterwards and then leave the building.

This isn’t exactly an example of a roundtable asynchronous timefree conversation is it? I make a comment and then have to remember to come back to see the response, or other people’s questions?

It’s just not intuitive - where is the user interface for our conversations? All over the place on other people’s blogs, that’s where.

Conversations shouldn’t be kept by just one of the contributing parties, and marketers would probably like to continue the conversation with people even after they’ve left the building.

Solve that one and then we’ll enable it with unified communications.

Similar themes

There is a useful ‘zeitgeist’ post by hugh macleod over on his blog, gapingvoid. Echo’s are here at Stowe Boyd’s blog, and I have to agree with both Stowe and Hugh, running a blog is a powerful learning and communicative experience, not to be undersold.

However, it is clear from the comments on the gapingvoid that other people are also still looking for other tools to keep the conversation going, and I think I’m agreeing that there is still some stuff missing (as well as being all over the place).

It feels like it wouldn’t take much to link blogs, comments and conversations, and I’m wondering whether this linked article here at gigaom is alluding to something. Although it talks about identity and Wordpress, the phrases “inside out social network”, and “the social graph” do resonate.

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.

There is more to being effective than just being efficient.

It’s been at the back of my mind that we ‘communication technology people’ are still only part way through making life easier, helping us all contact people more quickly and efficiently, and reducing the cost of doing so.

But once that job is finished, how are users helped to be more EFFECTIVE once the conversation is in progress.

A far more elegant description of the difference between efficient and effective can be found in this article from the boss of Parlano

Nick muses that we lack an ROI model for this collaboration technology, but it seems obvious that getting a purchasing decision should be easier once the tools to measure effectiveness are in place.

But, perhaps instead of tools we just need a new breed of business analysts who enjoy a challenge, whilst being given a full remit to change by those in charge.

Lots of people are working on this aspect of micro and macro productivity and Parlano have an interesting proposition which blurs the line between real time and messaging with group productivity around topics.

When I chose the name for this blog, it was partly because the word conversation does allow for extended communications around a subject over a sustained period via multiple modes and channels.

To sum up then, Unified Communications is just where we start, to enhance and speed connectivity…and as I comment, we can lead the horse to water more quickly, but effectiveness will need yet further ‘tools’. 

I admit to being interested in such toolkits, before I get any comments from colleagues, many thanks.

Del.icio.us is so simple, the potential usefulness passes you by at first. It’s the sort of service that makes you wish you’d spent more time reading the instructions six months ago when you first signed up.

A little introduction here, if you don’t know it.

See a webpage, click a button in your browser, save it with tags, and always find it again. All that useful stuff you can’t remember where it was? Not any more…very cool.

Using a reader, and subscribing to what colleagues and family find interesting, that’s a very simple way to reduce overloaded email inboxes!

However, if there is any element of competitive intelligence involved, then why not keep it in the family and install (10 users free), bookmarking, specifically for within the company.

Cogennz collective intelligence is a British Web 2.0 product, good show, and obviously therefore a step ahead

In a book called the tipping point, it is argued that sudden explosion of a social or business trend can be viewed in the same light as a disease epidemic might be.

An example in the book is sales of hush puppies going from 80,000 a year to zillions a year through a very small number of influential people making a small noise in the right place.

A couple of months ago I saved myself £300 in repairing a TV. It was out of warranty but googled and spotted 20 other users on a forum with the same problem. We’d all bought a TV in the exactly the same month, and whereas 10,000 other buyers never had a problem, we all did.

Obviously a batch issue - when I sent them the link to the forum Curry’s rolled immediately offered a free fix.

Now although this wouldn’t have happened two years ago. When the engineer turned up, he’d apparently billed lots of other people £300, so not everyone has got the hang of the internet as a consumer tool yet.

Corporate blogging is still very small in nature, probably? nowhere near even 5%, but in general, company behaviour is now seen to be taking account of internet happenings. Nowhere is this better described than in this article

Following the tipping point theory, there are some very violent increases or decreases in market share coming in the not too distant future.

For honest and hard working companies, karma is on it’s way, but help it along a little by being open about how honest and hardworking you are. Blogging is good for your search rankings and by getting there quickly, it will give you credibility before competitors.

As I wrote about here, I’m now pretty much convinced that browser based applications are just better for users, and the help-desk, than using client installed software.

However, there has always been a certain disconnect with the web apps, through not being notified of new things (or worse, getting email notification overload).  I’m sure I’ve read about Sharepoint suffering from this. And from my own example, there was no way I could rely on myself to check web based email on a regular basis as days could fly by.

So therefore, browser based applications need a client!! Don’t they?

My initial inspiration for this came mainly because of how useful Google Mail and Talk were with desktop notifications, even though the email was browser accessible.

For me, notification has made a crucial difference to personal adoption of web based personal email, as I can forget to use the tools, but as long as someone else maintains the effort, the notification drags me along!

One other aspect of client based browser software has convinced me that this Enterprise 2.0 adoption discussion could benefit from something so simple as desktop notification, as follows:

My company installed and deployed a browser based unified communications application over the last few months, and we slowly came to the realisation that although management were actively encouraging adoption (which shouldn’t be underestimated), there was a problem with people not logging in.

The network effect of Metcalfe’s law means that the less people that are logging on, the less useful the system will be.

In our case, initially we heard comments like, ”I logged on, but wasn’t anyone else on there….”

So, three things happened to put this right

1. Management continued to encourage people into at least logging on

2. One of our very clever technical types wrote a installer with a wrapper which automatically started the system every time the user’s desktop machine switched on plus,  

Included in the software wrapper was a facility to prevent the user accidentally closing the window, asking “Are you sure you want to close this window?” which meant people were more likely to STAY attentive. If minimised, the app ran in the system tray.

- this wrapper was the major difference in my opinion!

3. We trained more heavily and over a more closely sustained period than before to encourage people to cross the ‘first click’ barrier.

The difference in Adoption is amazing, and as simple as that. These things helped us reach a critical mass, and the true value became apparent to all users. Fantastically it’s now creating user passion and some great feedback!

Of course, it helps that the application is of great benefit once the users get there, but at least the application has the chance to succeed or fail.

One more useful browser adoption feature tip is the multiple home pages facility within Internet Explorer 7. Now every time I physically open my browser, it means that my Google Reader and Google Docs open alongside, resulting in daily attention to other updates!

OK, time to stop now.

Browser based applications are better than client software. Particularly for Unified Communications.

That’s a feeling I’ve had that’s been growing, particularly after reading a lot about this new web version lately, is it Web 2.0, or should that be Enterprise 2.0?

Looking back, when experimenting with web based applications in the late 1990’s, there was a lot missing.

Desktop based software had a certain familiarity, and it didn’t cost as much as using the internet (I didn’t have broadband in the 90’s). And then, there was the instant reaction you got from the desktop as compared to the click and wait of the browser.

Times have changed

Browser and web technology have enabled a real ‘desktop feel’ to browser accessible software and Broadband means that there is practically no cost to the amount of time and data used. But, my feeling of companies’ attitudes is they still feel that browser based applications are not as good, and I have to conclude that this stance must be based on those early experiences.

I suspect anyone newer to computers will already be convinced that web is so much better than desktop, for a number of reasons, and perhaps its just that us old timers have learnt to live with the pain.

For example, whenever an old desktop application needs upgrading, there is a big upheaval, potentially hazardous to the health of helpdesk staff.

• What are the consequences if the upgrade stops half way through?
• What versions of operating systems are going to be supported on the new versions?
• What happens if people using different versions of the software have to interract?
• What other interoperability issues exist with completely unknown software from thousands of other software developers?
• What security implications are there for this desktop based software, is someone going to write a client based exploit?
• What backups are required for the desktop software held information?
• What about synchronisation?

Do all these questions place a huge demand on developers? Will it slow development down? You bet.

Client Server technology is great, but compare the upgrade process - with web based systems you can tell the users the system will be offline on Sunday night, upgrade the server. It’s done.

Browser based software benefits include

• Easier backups
• Easier failover and disaster recovery support
• Easier access from multiple machines
• Easier support
• Easier integration of the system facilities into other processes
• Easier collaboration
• Easier to outsource (hosted services anyone?)

A colleague at a friendly company mentioned recently that they had abandoned the project to rollout CTI telephony integrated to their Microsoft LCS client.

The problem was that all versions had to be in synch, or the rollout just didn’t work. The payback wasn’t considered worth the extra support calls to the helpdesk that the rollout was generating, so it was canned. And these guys supply UC technology! 

In other words, using several client based software solutions, integrated from multiple suppliers - as the word unified implies - was just asking for trouble.

I had a look around, and found this 2004 post which starts to crystalise the argument for me. I read “When wizards stay up late” in the past, and similar books which made the point that Microsoft empire was built on schmoozing developers. No more it seems.