Regular readers of my posts will note that I have often spoke of the need for Enterprise and Web 2.0 architects to pay attention to the underlying network that acts as the basis for their applications. This may seem strange, after all television producers don’t spend much time worrying about cable or electrical networks, so why should application developers worry about the Internet? But how will Cloud and Web 2.0 services thrive if the underlying network is increasingly incapable of meeting growing demand for Internet services?

Continue Reading »

I had hoped to interview Dion Hinchcliffe, of Hinchcliffe & Co, back at the recent Web 2.0 Expo, but he turned the tables and interviewed me instead. But I tracked him down this week, and spent some time talking through some issues in enterprise 2.0.

Some highlights:

1. Dion is a treasure trove of case studies, starting with a great story about wiki use spreading in AOL years ago, at the very outset of Web 2.0 adoption in large companies.

2. Regarding adoption of Web 2.0, he quotes Euan Semple, “the easiest way to do this is to do nothing,” meaning that the millenials will pull these technologies into the enterprise. He also points out that since web 2.0 tools are more conversational you have to wait for people to warm up before joining, as opposed to point-and-shoot tools like email.
3. I asked if the specific culture of companies influences adoption. He responded that we should see things that we didn’t expect to see, since these tools lead to emergent benefits. We will see a broad range of responses, since “organizations are unique, and operate in very different ways.”
4. Dion agrees that there is a bimodal division in adoption because of the Econolypse: either companies “circle the wagons” and do nothing new, or else they embrace the crisis as an opportunity to explore lower-cost, web 2.0 alternatives. He cites the Transunion case study published by Socialtext, as an example.
5. Most requested: new ways of collaborating with partners outside the firewall. He thinks that these needs for extra-enterprise collaboration are still unmet, but working “better, faster, better” within the walls of the business is still the fundamental driver for adoption.

A great discussion, and very good advice for tool vendors thinking about positioning their products in this space, as well.

At this week’s VoiceCon conference I had the opportunity to moderate a panel discussion featuring Cisco VP & CTO of UC, Joe Burton, and IBM Lotus UC and Collaboration Services U.S. Leader Peter Fay on the role of Web 2.0 in an enterprise UC architecture.

Continue Reading »

At VoiceCon this week Microsoft’s Gurdeep Singh Paul argued that the desktop phone is dead, and that organizations who fail to make the switch to PC (or application) based telephony will fall behind those that do.

Continue Reading »

As a long-time user of Grandcentral’s Voice 2.0 service I’ve been concerned about the lack of news/updates since Grandcentral was acquired by Google in 2007. Given the expiration of the Grandcentral domain a few weeks ago, there was real concern that Grandcentral was not going to survive. Fortunately Google has allayed those fears with the announcement this morning of Google Voice. Google Voice shows the clear potential to use Web 2.0 technologies to add additional functionality to traditional phone services by adding in an application layer between a user and their underlying voice services. Finally, after nearly 100 years, we’re seeing real innovation in the way we make and receive calls.

One of the clear trends thus far in the IT industry is that many displaced workers are looking at contract work as a means to survive in these turbulent economic times. Fortunately, Web 2.0 and hosted applications such as Google Apps, Skype, Zoho, Gizmo, ThinkFree, Yugma, and FreeConferenceCall.com enable individuals to access a full suite of communication and collaboration applications that previously would have required a significant up-front and on-going investment. So how do these types of applications jump the gap from “useful for small groups or individuals” to “useful for large enterprise.”

Continue Reading »