.

There are Clouds in your company's horizon

'Cloud' is a service, usually a platform or software, delivered  to you from somewhere else  over the Internet.  Also known as 'cloud computing,' corporate clouds aren't totally  new -- many companies have been using services (Fidelity, Siebel, Hewitt...) for years.

"Cloud computing is the delivery of computing as a service rather than a product, whereby shared resources, software, and information are provided to computers and other devices as a metered service over a network (typically the Internet)." (Wikipedia)

So why is 'cloud' suddenly on the opportunity list of corporations everywhere? 

• Cloud has become quite good and it is proven to be highly reliable to manage the software they built themselves. Companies like Amazon and Rackspace provide platform-as-a-service (PaaS) with near-instant scalability and 99.9 % availability. Businesses can host their software there and not fret over capital costs, performance or up-time. Just buy what you require and release what you don't need. Companies become renters. At the same time, the platform providers offer better cost for higher performance and reliability. Smart enterprises know Amazon is never down.

   

• Software-as-a-service (SaaS) like Google's Docs has also proven itself. Consumers needn't download new software to use the latest functionality; it's just 'there.' For enterprises, SaaS lowers the cost of software delivery, training and development. Because it is often Web-based, a cloud application performs nicely on  most computers with an up-to-date browser.
   
• Speed is king for agile companies. Why write software when you can buy it, especially when it comes as a service? Frugal companies can shift IT budget to new priorities like bolstering internal network capacity and building a robust mobile architecture.

'On-premise' is the opposite of cloud. It's the traditional data center service that companies managed for decades. Company computers encircled in a firewall deliver customized applications direct to employees. There are many advantages with 'on-premise:' security, direct access to data, flexible development and a strategic, customized application architecture. Such a diverse architecture reflects the evolution of the company and is a best-fit for optimized business process. The downside? 'On-premise' is expensive to maintain.

It's doubtful a company can migrate all its software and data to the cloud. Scientific and manufacturing  information streams from special non-cloud devices. Agile companies that use strategic information will never surrender the right to ad hoc business analytics from Big Data hiding on both sides of the firewall. Legally, there is some highly secure information that cannot exist off-premise, at least for now.

It might be better to imagine smaller enterprise clouds instead of a single, large cloud. Employee productivity software (documents, spreadsheets, files...) could be a little cloud. Email could be a cloud. Non-integrated, workflow-free applications could be another little cloud. Big, interconnected systems probably won't make it to the cloud.

Andrew McAfee, author of Enterprise 2.0, recently wrote a though-provoking blog post about clouds and the enterprise. He compared today's cloud opportunity with last century's steam-versus-electricity choice. U.S. manufacturing was driven by steam power in 1910. Companies heavily invested in it were reluctant to change to electric power. Two decades later, those who disdained conversion were the minority. Newer manufacturers either chose electricity from the get-go or they switched. McAfee won't make a prediction, but his intuition says cloud is going to grow in the enterprise.

I agree. Companies already have a few clouds; there will certainly be several more.

.

How Social Business platforms extend the reach and value of document-centric knowledge

Knowledge is not just approved and categorized documents, but it's also the 'little knowledge' that flows about us during the workday. I call this "knowledge in motion," the kinetic information that flows by and nearly always disappears. Online collaboration persists this kind of knowledge. It's really 'wisdom:' knowledge enhanced with context (value, when, who) . Via links and tags, all knowledge can be more findable -- exploitable -- across the boundaries of time, team and culture.

Allow me illustrate via a story in Prezi. I introduce Thomas, now a senior scientist, who has a legacy of documented knowledge and profitable accomplishment for his company. Younger scientists from other countries find his documents and they release this content-centric knowledge into the company's social business environment. Furthermore, they augment it with what they know, what they find outside and even things Thomas doesn't know. Thus his 'legacy' grows. Eventually, Thomas is drawn into the emergent social network. I also show how Thomas attempts to collaborate with himself over time, and fails because he can't find his own 'little knowledge.'

Happy zooming! I hope you don't need a Dramamine.

.

Will G+ send Facebook to MySpaceLand?

I’ve had a chance to test drive the new Google Plus (G+ for short) this past week. I think Google finally has a serious entry in the social media oeuvre. G+ will be an additional social media venue, not a replacement. It will take time for humanity -- each person, really -- to decide how to balance the choices.   

G+ is that good. If I were a Mark Zuckerberg, I would shuffle that Facebook IPO to next week.

Google trickled out G+ invites in pulses through the week, mainly to early adopters. The ‘wait-in-line’ strategy seemed to work. All the technerati clamored for ‘invites’ from fortunate friends who had them. Those who got through the chute immediately set to testing the functionality. The general opinion so far is “WOW.”

My first favorable G+ impression was of the simple, clean design. There are no games and no ads… just a lot of beautiful white space and the Google primary colors. I knew at a glance what I could do. Intuition was enough to figure G+ out. And I love that G+ is not blue like its competition (What is it with blue and social media, anyway?)

Google introduces some new concepts in G+. There are ‘Circles,’ groups that give the user simple control of who-sees-what. People in a circle can ‘Hangout’ via crisp video chat with up to ten people in a delightful way. Google Chat is in there as well. Finally, there are ‘Sparks,’ suggested news feeds you may subscribe to.

Since I use my iDevices as much as my corporate laptop and home iMac, I gave G+ a once-over on my iPad and iPhone. The mobile Web interface was exceptional and quite fast. Android users do have a true app in the Android Marketplace. Google promises Apple users their own app “soon.” (As they should, since mobile drives social content more than desktop usage.)

Google has some work to do: my Google Contacts, Reader,  Voice, Docs and Gmail still look different from each other and G+. None seems integrated with G+. At times my profile picture shifts. Circles are deceptively simple, an easy concept at first glance, thorough mastery requires a good understanding of logic and Set Theory. I predict normals making ‘circular’ mistakes.

I'd also like to see tagging, tag clouds and trending topics. Google disdains human-managed discovery and 'folksonomies,' preferring to nudge the user with search-based algorithms. A shame, because social media means social exploration. People are pretty good at finding things. We like the adjacencies other Homo sapiens create. I have observed people adding hashtags in G+ posts knowing they are useless. Tags are the adjectives of social media language. They are a standard. They must be there.

Another caution: the gossipy technerati love new toys and are happily distracted by them. Early adopters read Mashable first thing each morning with their coffee, parsing through the latest media toy reviews. Could G+ a fad? A social media fashion? This summer's pink? 

Remember Quora? That social phenomenon enflamed them -- for a week. Quora was to be the new way to bring worldwide knowledge and collaboration togther. Quora is still here, but the social media class got bored and moved on. Are we seeing an intensified Quora-like infatuation with G+? Perhaps.

G+ is a keeper IF Google decides to keep it. Google is notoriously business-addled with many of its products. Acquired or developed, Google has disappointed fans before by abandoning exciting products like Orkut, Blogger, Wave, and Buzz. One never knows with enigmatic Google. I’ve commented before that Google doesn’t “get” social. Google’s Gnomes are happy to tinker with code and algorithms. Solutions based on human activity seem to bore them.

But maybe not this time.

G+ is good, promisingly good. Will it affect other social media venues? Absolutely. People are tired of devious, cavalier Facebook. Skype should be worried about G+ video Hangouts which are free, have equivalent functionality and just as easy (easier?) to use.

Resistance doesn't seem futile anymore.

If Google leans into G+ and follows through on its mobile UI and integration intentions, you can expect a migration away from other social media platforms. It will be a matter of how much and how soon.  Facebook and LinkedIn may linger for a few years because people have imprinted on them and that is where their social ties are. But humans are fickle. Brokers who add little value and a lot of worry, and treat their customers like raw materials, are readily abandoned. Let's hope G+ competition improves Facebook, LinkedIn and Skype. Diversity and choices are healthy for the social media ecosystem.

What about Twitter? Early adopters are saying it will lose ground as well. G+ seems to offer overlapping functionality to Twitter’s, I disagree and I’ll argue that Twitter will continue to thrive because it is so simple and fast. It takes seconds to tweet something. Furthermore, Apple is basing its mobile operating system, OS 5, on Twitter. Twitter is not a destination like G+; Twitter is liquid network.

Companies should enroll into G+ when Google gives the 'all clear'. The +1 button via G+ will have equal market wattage as Facebook’s ‘Like.’ Social SEO? You bet. Google will introduce ‘Pages’ into G+ in the near future. Pages will be the way enterprises cultivate community, brand and presence.

Google's plans for G+ and businesses

And how about inside the enterprise, that ‘Enterprise 2.0’ stuff? I’m a little more reserved here. Google spooks companies and I don’t see anything in G+ to will change that opinion. I'm not sure Google even cares. Employees will use it anyway, and G+, like any other Socially Transmitted Software (STS) will find its way into the enterprise.

I read this week that "Google+ is a chance for social networkers to start over." Perhaps we are yearning to free ourselves of adolescent Facebook and boring Linkedin. G+ may be the reset button we seek.

 .

.

Business transformation is probably already underway where you work

 Courtesy Fresh Networks  

Large enterprises fund massive projects to standardize global business process and software. They hope ERP software and some consultant pixie dust will transform them into the companies they would like to be.  Ambitious projects, but I'm wondering if their leadership is aware of the other transformation already underway. The one you are participating in right now because you are reading this.

I am talking about the shift towards engaged, agile employees and self-forming teams. This is the transformation based on the empowerment of the individual, intensified by social technologies and consumer-type behavior in the workplace. The signals are all around you: employees with their own smartphones doing company business; global teams using enterprise social software like IBM Connections, SocialCast or Jive.

The world is changing -- flattening -- and old hierarchical organizations can't keep pace with nimble competitors or fickle customers. Pyramidal, silo-based organizations lack the ability to quickly respond. Bureaucracy, cost-management mindsets... workflows...  make for a timid, obedient workforce. Command-and-control displaces trust. Innovation flags. Managers flee risk. People seek approval before acting. Teams let their spreadsheets think for them.

At the same time employees have more capability than ever before. They're more educated. They travel a lot. They are adept at technology and information-savvy. Increasingly, they know how to the strum the external social network and make Google sing. 

New entrants into the workforce, the 'Millennials,' lack the patience of their elders. They see hierarchies as barriers. Generation Y doesn't understand why the vice president won't return their messages.  Companies face perpetual challenge to the status quo when the Millennials get their employee badges,.

Is the old organization model about to break? 67% of American workers are unhappy with their jobs. Could a  top-down corporate structure, a 17th century anachronism, be smothering employees with bureaucracy and e-productivity? Are companies letting employee ingenuity give way to compliant behavior? Is the enterprise too rule-based?

Employees are ready and willing to contribute. With the proper motivators employees will deliver on goals in a effective and satisfying way. Corporations of self-forming teams with a looser 'official structure' may be the key to winning against the competition. Yes, it won't be predictable or very measurable. It may even be costly. But the overall return to shareholders may be higher.

Below is a video from Bettermeans. The message is a bit utopian, but bear with it; there are points you should consider.

Autonomy, principles, decentralization and social technology may be the keys to your business transformation

 .

 .

An HIV virus penetrating a healthy human immune cell

Nearly every large company is infected by STSs or what I call "Socially Transmitted Software." I'm not talking about malignant agents like worms, Trojan horses or scumware. No, these STSs are the kind you read about in Mashable and RWW, those that get glowing praise from the technical chatterati. STSs are beloved by consumers seeking to use them at their office. But IT and internal security have a low regard for STSs. Such software is a serious threat in their view. Why does the enterprise fear STSs?

STSs are like STDs in many ways. STDs, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, used to be called social diseases not too long ago. Why 'social?' These diseases are passed from human to human via intimate sex, a special kind of social interaction based on mutual pleasure. But  how can software be a 'disease?' Isn't 'infection' a bit over-the-top? Consider Wikipedia's definition:

An infection is the colonization of a host organism by parasite species. Infecting parasites seek to use the host's resources to reproduce, often resulting in disease.

STDs must have a host and willing partners. STDs are successful when they colonize, build up a sustainable internal population and then penetrate another host.

STSs infect the enterprise via willing and reckless employees. People install an STS at the request of a friend or family member. It may come from an app store or Web site. An STS may be mobile or browser-based. The experience is fun and effective. Naturally, when this person dons his employee badge, he will want to use the same software inside the company. Tasks are more enjoyable and productive that way.

Enterprises recoil at the idea of random software entering the corporate (from the Latin corpus, 'body') workplace. Such software is never vetted the old-fashioned way: no network analysis; no vendor background check; no license; no intellectual property protection; and so on. Substitute 'risk' for 'disease' and it is easy to see why antiseptic, obsessive-compulsive enterprises panic.

Companies' immune systems are no longer adequate. The firewall isn't the effective prophylactic it once was. Employees bring their own computers called 'smartphones' and network 'wireless' with them. Yes, STSs can be airborne, too.

Employees tether their devices to company computers. They will use cloud-based services to move corporate media back and forth. Blocking Facebook is no longer effective when the secretary can use her iPhone to check her news feed. And don't think about blacklisting Youtube. You can't; the marketing team has videos out there.

There are three STSs that really trouble companies: Yammer, Skype and file sharing services like Dropbox and Google. Yammer is a microblogging service whose preferred host is a business. Yammer is nicely made with features attuned to employee-to-employee sharing. Yammer appeals to the mobile employee with its 'push' notification to smartphones. The price is right: Yammer is 'free' with very limited terms of service. Employees really like this. Best of all, no need to get Big IT involved. Well, maybe later, when they get into trouble. Until they do, they just set up a Yammer account and invite their friends.

'Free' means 'risk' to the enterprise. It means no legal non-disclosure agreement. Yammer also permits non-sanctioned corporate impersonation. Anybody can add the corporate logo to a Yammer instance. Newly invited employees think the instance is corporate and safe, and they 'yammer' away. Meanwhile, the people guarding the corporate brand identity are dialing their lawyers.

'EyE pEEp holE' by eyemakeart

Everyone knows about Skype. It's the Dick Tracy fantasy, delivered: talking heads on your device, any time. Inexpensive, too, and free (that word again) when used between computers. The interface is delightful. The most attractive feature for traveling employees? Skype works just about anywhere in the world. Perfect for the 8:00 pm phone conference with Japan.

What's so scary about Skype? Um, there's that risk thing again; company secrets fly across unsecured and unencrypted lines. And Skype is a bit creepy, too. If left on but not in use, it just does things. Skype wakes up and the hard disk light comes on. IT telecommunication teams suspect 'theft of service' issues with Skype. Is Skype using a corporate resource for non-company business?

Dropbox? What's not to love about friendly little Dropbox? It's so easy to use. The Dropbox cloud allows employees to telecommute or work on the go. Dropbox is the de facto file system for the mobile employee. Working on a sales forecast spreadsheet but it's time to leave the office? Plop it into your Dropbox and you can finish it on your home computer after dinner. But how secure is the storage? Who is accountable if the spreadsheet is missing?

A progressive enterprise knows a good thing when it sees it. Employees are willing to work more -- and more productively -- when they can use their personal devices with the cloud. Companies are struggling to respond. Their old tools of policy and firewall are feeble against the STS. They hope their trusted IT partners  (IBM? Cisco? Microsoft?) will develop enterprise-safe inoculants for the STS. These vendors will catch up, eventually, but they are always cycles behind the consumer market. And just like human pathogens, the STSs will alter themselves to competitive-preventative pressure.

What to do? Personally, I have used all three of these tools and I love them. With the exception of Skype, they are free to me. As someone who evangelizes inside the company for social collaboration, I very much want to see the concepts of these tools to succeed.

The key may be found if we look again to biology. The solution may be adaptation, that ability of an organism to respond to a threat. The enterprise must become more tolerant, somehow, to mobile and external social software. The employee must adapt by assuming more forethought -- and consequence. Instead of policies, companies should aggresively train employees. And yes, the enterprise should accept a little more risk.

And the STSs? They will adapt, too. STSs know the competition is coming. Look-alikes are easy to develop. Substitutes that play by corporate rules will get the phone call from the procurement department. Instead of blue Web pages with scant 'About Our Company' information, STSs will have actual phone numbers and names. Instead of encouraging software promiscuity, they'll start calling the corporate C-suites. Instead of parasitism, they attain symbiosis.

The enterprise doesn't trust STSs. To stay competitive and survive, the STS must be social with the enterprise, not just its employees. It's all about trust.