I was interested and encouraged to see the announcement this week from Google of its new initiative to create a reseller channel for its online office applications. While I still remain sceptical about the appeal of cloud based propositions in a core business environment as a replacement for traditional desktop suites, mainly because the feedback we get is that people have more pressing things to worry about than fixing something they don’t regard to be broken, if traction is to be gained in this space, then the channel is a key part of the equation.
This is something I have discussed in depth in my research note entitled ‘Taking Cloud to the Mainstream’, which can be downloaded from here if you are interested in a review of some of the market practicalities and realities.
In the meantime, while the cloud evangelists will no doubt get all excited about one of their darlings making this move, we have to be realistic about how long it takes for a supplier to develop a viable and productive indirect channel. Too often, I have seen reseller initiatives started then fade away after 6-12 months as patience is lost with the slowness of the process. The reality is that it takes at least a couple of years for a brand new channel programme, especially a volume one, to deliver consistently. Whether Google will have the staying power remains to be seen, though if it wants to penetrate the SMB market, it really has no choice for the reasons I outline in the abovementioned research note.
In many ways, this move by Google is a bit of a distraction when considering how the SMB market for SaaS based solutions is going to open up in the shorter term. The real player to watch here is Microsoft, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it already has the channel in place, and extending existing relationships and agreements is an order of magnitude easier and quicker than building new ones from scratch. Secondly, the Microsoft Software plus Services (S+S) philosophy is both more mature than the Google’s cloud centric play and resonates much better with the target audience. From a channel perspective, the S+S approach, potentially allowing bundles of pre-integrated on-premise and on-demand offerings to be sold together, is also more in tune with the cross-sell imperative that is ingrained in the reseller community.
Despite these market realities, though, I applaud this latest move from Google as a sign of it getting real about tackling the mainstream business sector effectively, rather than relying on posturing and media hype, which cuts little ice in that space. I also welcome the possibility of some serious competition for Microsoft in the office suite arena, which the market is desperately in need of. Will Google Apps provide this? I guess we’ll have to wait and see, as Google is now very much playing on someone else’s turf.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The role of Microsoft in the downturn
Towards the end of last year, I received an invitation from Microsoft to meet its UK Managing Director, Gordon Frazer, to discuss ways in which the company was able to help its customers deal with the impact of the economic downturn. Having already spent a lot of time researching how IT departments might respond to the squeeze (subsequently written up here), the topic was very much front of mind. Indeed, I had already looked quite closely at ways in which Microsoft and other major vendors could be of use in this context.
Against this background, I accepted the invitation, but stressed that I was mostly interested in a discussion of what Microsoft can do, or is doing, that is different to the pack, rather than covering the more obvious stuff we are hearing from the vendor community in general. I also thought it would be a good opportunity to get under the skin of how Microsoft is viewing the current economic situation and the spirit with which it will be operating as we look forward to 2009 and beyond.
Before getting into the discussion itself, it is probably worth recapping why it is relevant to pay particular attention to Microsoft. Quite simply, this boils down to the fact that it is the most prominent vendor in terms of incumbency. When we ask IT professionals about the suppliers that are important to them in our large scale research projects, Microsoft consistently comes top of the list, regardless of organisation size. Here, for example, is a plot of the results from a recent online survey (November 2008) of close to 1000 respondents.
This data happens to be based on an open, unprompted question. If you offer IT professionals, particularly more senior ones, a list of commonly incumbent vendors, you typically see Microsoft cited in over three quarters of cases as being important. This difference between prompted and unprompted in itself is interesting, in that even if you do not think of yourself as a ‘Microsoft shop’, so are not inclined to name Microsoft when asked an open question about important suppliers, as soon as you are prompted, it reminds you just how much of its stuff is embedded in your infrastructure. When considering how to respond to economic pressure, at some point, you are therefore likely to have to think about Microsoft and/or the solutions it provides that are relevant to your business.
If we turn this around, this places quite a bit of responsibility on Microsoft as a supplier as it touches so many organisations. And from a Microsoft perspective, one of the first things I discussed with Frazer was the challenge of responding to the needs of such a diverse customer base, which in the business sector ranges from self employed home workers to the largest multi-nationals in the world. There is then the variation in how and to what degree the squeeze is going to hit people, not just between different sectors and organisations, but even within them.
Given this, we agreed it was inappropriate to make the simplistic assumption that the blanket response to the down-turn will be obsessive cost cutting across the board. While it is true to say that most will have an eye on cost, many will also be looking to develop and invest in certain parts of their business to extend them or make them more effective. This will be particularly true if you see the economic climate as an opportunity to outmanoeuvre the competition or grab pieces of the market that are vacated by struggling incumbents. There are then fundamental imperatives such as ensuring the operation of your sales and marketing operation is as finely tuned as possible to make sure you win more than your fair share of business in a challenged market with fewer opportunities.
The point here is that it is necessary for us to think a bit more intelligently and holistically as IT professionals when considering how to respond to the squeeze, as summarised in the following chart from the abovementioned report:
This kind of view is useful to put some of the Microsoft related specifics I discussed with Frazer into perspective.
In terms of infrastructure optimisation, for instance, Microsoft’s recent emphasis on virtualisation is very relevant. It’s not so much that Microsoft has anything particularly new or innovative here by way of fundamental capability, especially on the server side of the equation. Indeed, there are more mature virtualisation players and solutions out there. The significance is that Microsoft is looking to lower the barrier to entry in terms of skills, complexity and economics, the idea being to not only deal with the requirements of large scale data centres, but to also bring simple cost effective virtualisation capability to the masses of small and mid-sized organisations that are yet to take advantage of this kind of technology.
The general theme of making things cheaper and more accessible also runs through some of the other plays highlighted by Frazer. Looking beyond IT operations to how technology can help the business deal with economic pressures, the spotlight quickly swings to mobile technology, unified communications, portal based collaboration, business intelligence, and so on. These are all areas in which Microsoft has attempted to provide easy ways for customers to ‘build out’ from their existing Microsoft infrastructure to improve workforce efficiency and effectiveness, both of which are important when the squeeze is on and getting the most from your people is a key imperative.
In practical terms, whether it’s extending access to Exchange with Windows Mobile devices, snuggling Office Communication Server (OCS) alongside Exchange to allow instant messaging, web conferencing, etc, or simply starting to make use of the embedded BI capability within SQL Server as the foundation for enabling better decisions, the spirit is one of delivering new capability in comfortable, incremental and ‘recession friendly’ steps.
These examples, and others around SharePoint, Office System and CRM, led to a discussion with Frazer about a couple of other things to consider.
Firstly, something that can be said about a lot of software solutions, but particularly applies to Microsoft products, is that only a fraction of the functionality they provide is actually exploited. We have already mentioned that SQL Server, for example, can do a lot more in terms of sophisticated information management and analysis than many IT professionals take notice of or even realise. And how many organisations out there are using Microsoft Office on the desktop as simply a collection of document editors, with SharePoint Services running in the network as a glorified file share? In this case, look beyond the obvious functionality and together these solutions represent a pretty capable authoring, workflow and collaboration environment.
The point here is that in the current climate, it is going to be worth a lot of organisations reviewing the degree to which they are getting the maximum value from their existing Microsoft infrastructure. With a little end user training or thought about policies and process, a lot can be achieved in terms of delivering incremental value to the business. With this in mind, Frazer highlighted the investment Microsoft has made in terms of online training, guides, templates, etc, much of which is available at no cost from www.microsoft.com. His view was that enabling customers to make the most of Microsoft technology represents a good win/win. The customer clearly benefits, but so does Microsoft, as organisations are much more likely to remain loyal and extend their investments in the future if they are getting good value from the solutions already in place.
The second discussion point that emerged from talking through specific propositions was around the way in which Microsoft products are often designed to work together. Frazer understandably highlighted the ‘synergies’ here, and I agree that there are many organisations out there that are happy to immerse themselves in a Microsoft-centric world to take advantage of the incremental value this can represent. However, our own research tells us there are probably as many organisations that are wary of selling their soul to Microsoft for fear of compromise and/or lock-in. It is not that they don’t see Microsoft as having strong solutions in specific areas, they just acknowledge that stronger solutions from competitors exist in others, and they like to qualify components objectively to ensure the optimum mix of technology.
With this in mind, my message to Frazer was therefore to make sure that the value of individual solutions was considered and articulated effectively so those looking to make decisions in a specific domain could compare like for like objectively. A good example here is virtualisation. While Microsoft has developed some decent server side technology in this space, it has a tendency to position an overall virtualisation proposition that encompasses the desktop also, all wrapped up in integrated management capability. It’s a great vision, but not particularly useful when server and desktop virtualisation plays are at different stages of maturity and acceptance, and are managed by different groups within the customer’s organisation anyway. As one response to the squeeze is to scope projects and investments even more tightly, trying to broaden the discussion is often going to be counterproductive.
The last topic I discussed with Frazer was less about the part played by technology per se and more about the mechanisms for acquiring it. We both saw a potentially important role for financing options and hosted solutions. We also agreed, however, that lack of awareness was one of the biggest challenges in both of these cases, particularly with regard to small and medium businesses. Here, though, Frazer highlighted one of Microsoft’s biggest assets, its channel of resellers, ISVs, etc, and alluded to efforts being made to enable partners in these areas. I am inclined to agree that solution providers on the front line dealing directly with the mainstream lower and mid-markets are critical to educating customers on the options. Given that a lot of the channel is so short on knowledge at the moment in these areas, however, and often even struggle with the more fundamental topic of Microsoft licensing options, it will be interesting to see how the channel enablement activity pans out.
Meanwhile, I have to say that I was pretty impressed with the down to earth and pragmatic nature of what I was hearing from Frazer. Quite a contrast to some of the idealistic, cliché and, quite frankly, ill-informed stuff we hear from some vendors on how best to respond to economic challenges. I guess as Managing Director, though, Frazer 'is that business leader’, who no doubt will have some challenges of his own to work through as Microsoft navigates its way through the difficult times ahead. Perhaps the empathy that stems from this is what keeps him grounded when it comes to discussing the hard stuff.
Against this background, I accepted the invitation, but stressed that I was mostly interested in a discussion of what Microsoft can do, or is doing, that is different to the pack, rather than covering the more obvious stuff we are hearing from the vendor community in general. I also thought it would be a good opportunity to get under the skin of how Microsoft is viewing the current economic situation and the spirit with which it will be operating as we look forward to 2009 and beyond.
Before getting into the discussion itself, it is probably worth recapping why it is relevant to pay particular attention to Microsoft. Quite simply, this boils down to the fact that it is the most prominent vendor in terms of incumbency. When we ask IT professionals about the suppliers that are important to them in our large scale research projects, Microsoft consistently comes top of the list, regardless of organisation size. Here, for example, is a plot of the results from a recent online survey (November 2008) of close to 1000 respondents.
This data happens to be based on an open, unprompted question. If you offer IT professionals, particularly more senior ones, a list of commonly incumbent vendors, you typically see Microsoft cited in over three quarters of cases as being important. This difference between prompted and unprompted in itself is interesting, in that even if you do not think of yourself as a ‘Microsoft shop’, so are not inclined to name Microsoft when asked an open question about important suppliers, as soon as you are prompted, it reminds you just how much of its stuff is embedded in your infrastructure. When considering how to respond to economic pressure, at some point, you are therefore likely to have to think about Microsoft and/or the solutions it provides that are relevant to your business.
If we turn this around, this places quite a bit of responsibility on Microsoft as a supplier as it touches so many organisations. And from a Microsoft perspective, one of the first things I discussed with Frazer was the challenge of responding to the needs of such a diverse customer base, which in the business sector ranges from self employed home workers to the largest multi-nationals in the world. There is then the variation in how and to what degree the squeeze is going to hit people, not just between different sectors and organisations, but even within them.
Given this, we agreed it was inappropriate to make the simplistic assumption that the blanket response to the down-turn will be obsessive cost cutting across the board. While it is true to say that most will have an eye on cost, many will also be looking to develop and invest in certain parts of their business to extend them or make them more effective. This will be particularly true if you see the economic climate as an opportunity to outmanoeuvre the competition or grab pieces of the market that are vacated by struggling incumbents. There are then fundamental imperatives such as ensuring the operation of your sales and marketing operation is as finely tuned as possible to make sure you win more than your fair share of business in a challenged market with fewer opportunities.
The point here is that it is necessary for us to think a bit more intelligently and holistically as IT professionals when considering how to respond to the squeeze, as summarised in the following chart from the abovementioned report:
This kind of view is useful to put some of the Microsoft related specifics I discussed with Frazer into perspective.
In terms of infrastructure optimisation, for instance, Microsoft’s recent emphasis on virtualisation is very relevant. It’s not so much that Microsoft has anything particularly new or innovative here by way of fundamental capability, especially on the server side of the equation. Indeed, there are more mature virtualisation players and solutions out there. The significance is that Microsoft is looking to lower the barrier to entry in terms of skills, complexity and economics, the idea being to not only deal with the requirements of large scale data centres, but to also bring simple cost effective virtualisation capability to the masses of small and mid-sized organisations that are yet to take advantage of this kind of technology.
The general theme of making things cheaper and more accessible also runs through some of the other plays highlighted by Frazer. Looking beyond IT operations to how technology can help the business deal with economic pressures, the spotlight quickly swings to mobile technology, unified communications, portal based collaboration, business intelligence, and so on. These are all areas in which Microsoft has attempted to provide easy ways for customers to ‘build out’ from their existing Microsoft infrastructure to improve workforce efficiency and effectiveness, both of which are important when the squeeze is on and getting the most from your people is a key imperative.
In practical terms, whether it’s extending access to Exchange with Windows Mobile devices, snuggling Office Communication Server (OCS) alongside Exchange to allow instant messaging, web conferencing, etc, or simply starting to make use of the embedded BI capability within SQL Server as the foundation for enabling better decisions, the spirit is one of delivering new capability in comfortable, incremental and ‘recession friendly’ steps.
These examples, and others around SharePoint, Office System and CRM, led to a discussion with Frazer about a couple of other things to consider.
Firstly, something that can be said about a lot of software solutions, but particularly applies to Microsoft products, is that only a fraction of the functionality they provide is actually exploited. We have already mentioned that SQL Server, for example, can do a lot more in terms of sophisticated information management and analysis than many IT professionals take notice of or even realise. And how many organisations out there are using Microsoft Office on the desktop as simply a collection of document editors, with SharePoint Services running in the network as a glorified file share? In this case, look beyond the obvious functionality and together these solutions represent a pretty capable authoring, workflow and collaboration environment.
The point here is that in the current climate, it is going to be worth a lot of organisations reviewing the degree to which they are getting the maximum value from their existing Microsoft infrastructure. With a little end user training or thought about policies and process, a lot can be achieved in terms of delivering incremental value to the business. With this in mind, Frazer highlighted the investment Microsoft has made in terms of online training, guides, templates, etc, much of which is available at no cost from www.microsoft.com. His view was that enabling customers to make the most of Microsoft technology represents a good win/win. The customer clearly benefits, but so does Microsoft, as organisations are much more likely to remain loyal and extend their investments in the future if they are getting good value from the solutions already in place.
The second discussion point that emerged from talking through specific propositions was around the way in which Microsoft products are often designed to work together. Frazer understandably highlighted the ‘synergies’ here, and I agree that there are many organisations out there that are happy to immerse themselves in a Microsoft-centric world to take advantage of the incremental value this can represent. However, our own research tells us there are probably as many organisations that are wary of selling their soul to Microsoft for fear of compromise and/or lock-in. It is not that they don’t see Microsoft as having strong solutions in specific areas, they just acknowledge that stronger solutions from competitors exist in others, and they like to qualify components objectively to ensure the optimum mix of technology.
With this in mind, my message to Frazer was therefore to make sure that the value of individual solutions was considered and articulated effectively so those looking to make decisions in a specific domain could compare like for like objectively. A good example here is virtualisation. While Microsoft has developed some decent server side technology in this space, it has a tendency to position an overall virtualisation proposition that encompasses the desktop also, all wrapped up in integrated management capability. It’s a great vision, but not particularly useful when server and desktop virtualisation plays are at different stages of maturity and acceptance, and are managed by different groups within the customer’s organisation anyway. As one response to the squeeze is to scope projects and investments even more tightly, trying to broaden the discussion is often going to be counterproductive.
The last topic I discussed with Frazer was less about the part played by technology per se and more about the mechanisms for acquiring it. We both saw a potentially important role for financing options and hosted solutions. We also agreed, however, that lack of awareness was one of the biggest challenges in both of these cases, particularly with regard to small and medium businesses. Here, though, Frazer highlighted one of Microsoft’s biggest assets, its channel of resellers, ISVs, etc, and alluded to efforts being made to enable partners in these areas. I am inclined to agree that solution providers on the front line dealing directly with the mainstream lower and mid-markets are critical to educating customers on the options. Given that a lot of the channel is so short on knowledge at the moment in these areas, however, and often even struggle with the more fundamental topic of Microsoft licensing options, it will be interesting to see how the channel enablement activity pans out.
Meanwhile, I have to say that I was pretty impressed with the down to earth and pragmatic nature of what I was hearing from Frazer. Quite a contrast to some of the idealistic, cliché and, quite frankly, ill-informed stuff we hear from some vendors on how best to respond to economic challenges. I guess as Managing Director, though, Frazer 'is that business leader’, who no doubt will have some challenges of his own to work through as Microsoft navigates its way through the difficult times ahead. Perhaps the empathy that stems from this is what keeps him grounded when it comes to discussing the hard stuff.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Justifying investment in collaboration technology
Having listened to a lot of vendors and advocates talk about the rationale for investment in technologies that enhance collaborative working, it is amazing how much the word ‘innovation’ comes up. The premise for adoption of everything from unified communications to Enterprise 2.0 (business oriented social media solutions) is so often to ‘unlock the potential of your people’, allowing them to get their heads together and come up with new ideas and new ways of doing things that take the business forward. As part of the discussion, it is common for an emphasis to be placed on new business models, improved processes, and similar.
While the consideration of how improved collaboration facilities can enhance innovation is completely appropriate (provided you are clear on the type of innovation you have in mind), it is important not to lose sight of how enhancing collaborative working can drive straightforward efficiencies within existing processes and models. In fact, improving workforce efficiency is a more common driver for investment.
The key here is appreciating that many business processes in place today already rely on interactions between people that can’t necessarily be captured in predefined workflows. Whether it is moving a deal forward in a sales context, resolving a customer support issue with input from different departments, or agreeing budgets across cost centres for the next financial year, such activities often involve a lot of paper and email flying around in an unstructured manner, not to mention phone calls, meetings, etc. And a similar set of interactions is evident when we look at more project oriented work.
There is a lot to be gained by greasing the wheels of all such activity through improved communication and collaboration facilities that can translate to direct and measurable benefits to the business, without getting into the whole innovation thing that is so difficult to translate into a tangible return when putting together a business case.
So, as a tip, particularly if you are looking to justify a collaboration related investment in these difficult times, centre your case on the efficiency angle. Depending on the environment, the benefits from enabling innovation may be significantly greater, but if you can’t pin down the return, getting approval to spend is going to be much more difficult.
While the consideration of how improved collaboration facilities can enhance innovation is completely appropriate (provided you are clear on the type of innovation you have in mind), it is important not to lose sight of how enhancing collaborative working can drive straightforward efficiencies within existing processes and models. In fact, improving workforce efficiency is a more common driver for investment.
The key here is appreciating that many business processes in place today already rely on interactions between people that can’t necessarily be captured in predefined workflows. Whether it is moving a deal forward in a sales context, resolving a customer support issue with input from different departments, or agreeing budgets across cost centres for the next financial year, such activities often involve a lot of paper and email flying around in an unstructured manner, not to mention phone calls, meetings, etc. And a similar set of interactions is evident when we look at more project oriented work.
There is a lot to be gained by greasing the wheels of all such activity through improved communication and collaboration facilities that can translate to direct and measurable benefits to the business, without getting into the whole innovation thing that is so difficult to translate into a tangible return when putting together a business case.
So, as a tip, particularly if you are looking to justify a collaboration related investment in these difficult times, centre your case on the efficiency angle. Depending on the environment, the benefits from enabling innovation may be significantly greater, but if you can’t pin down the return, getting approval to spend is going to be much more difficult.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
The broadening collaboration gap
One of the basic principles upon which all of our research at Freeform Dynamics is based is that there is no such thing as ‘Average Inc’. Whether we are talking about organisational structures, business processes, corporate culture, IT landscape, level of regulation, etc, there are clearly many factors that define values, priorities, constraints, and ultimately behaviour.
This in turn limits the value of many of the more subjective discussions that take place in the industry around the relative merits or otherwise of new ideas and technologies. The notion of an individual product or solution being 'the best', or even better or worse than anything else, typically doesn't make sense unless you define the context in which adoption is being considered. And when we turn our attention to perceptions, the organisational environment and context plays a big role in determining the degree to which the relevance and value of a given type of solution is appreciated.
An example of this was illustrated recently by Josie in her recent blog post discussing how well BT is tuned into the needs of its customers when it comes to unified communications (UC). In this, she illustrates how the presence of a collaborative culture can increase the chances of UC adoption by between 5 and 10 times. This makes sense as those who value effective communication and collaboration are much more likely to be interested in ways of ways of enhancing interactions across the workforce, as well as with customers, suppliers and partners.
But what of those organisations at the other extreme with highly individualistic cultures in which minimal collaboration and sharing tends to take place? After all, quite a few of these exist.
The problem is that most of the messaging we hear from vendors and advocates in this space starts with the basic assumption that improved collaboration is a priority for all organisations. Indeed many prefix their pitches with a discussion of how the world in general is becoming more collaborative and interactive, almost as if the business community is homogenous in its ambition, direction and action.
Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. In a study we conducted in the middle of last year, for example, we found that at least 4 in 10 of the larger organisations interviewed placed no real priority on driving improvements in this area. While this finding in itself is significant, the picture becomes even more interesting when we look at which organisations are increasing the emphasis on sharing and collaborative working, and which are not.
What we can see here is not only a collaboration gap, but one that is getting wider. In a nutshell, those organisations that currently operate in highly collaborative manner are generally looking to drive even more collaboration. At the other extreme, while some recognise the imperative to get better, the majority of those with a highly individualistic culture are either standing still or moving backwards (just look at the red and amber segments on the bottom bar above).
To me, this is all a little worrying, as I see a lot of preaching to the converted going on out there, which is only going to reinforce this dynamic. I have already discussed the problems associated with advocates and evangelists not really appreciating what goes on outside of their echo chamber, and failing to connect with the mainstream. With vendors, it is more a case of business motivation, in that it is natural to direct your promotional material and sales force at those that are more likely to buy collaboration solutions. Along the way, many organisations that probably have a greater need than most to enable a more collaborative working environment, but do not realise this, are being left out in the cold.
Of course you could take the view that if an organisation doesn't appreciate the value of improvements in this domain then it deserves to be left behind, and I have read comments to this effect on various blog posts recently. Personally, I would prefer vendors and advocates to act on the principle put forward at the very beginning of this post, i.e. that environment and context are extremely important when trying to drive enlightenment, motivation and action. The trick is to move the discussion from a subjective to an objective footing, talking less about generic benefits, and more about specific scenarios that organisations of different kinds can relate to easily. My own view, as previously discussed, is that this objective approach is relevant regardless of the culture and environment currently in place.
Meanwhile, improved communication and collaboration will become even more of an imperative for many in the economic downturn (discussed in context here), so a more inclusive approach could be argued to be particularly appropriate in these challenging times.
This in turn limits the value of many of the more subjective discussions that take place in the industry around the relative merits or otherwise of new ideas and technologies. The notion of an individual product or solution being 'the best', or even better or worse than anything else, typically doesn't make sense unless you define the context in which adoption is being considered. And when we turn our attention to perceptions, the organisational environment and context plays a big role in determining the degree to which the relevance and value of a given type of solution is appreciated.
An example of this was illustrated recently by Josie in her recent blog post discussing how well BT is tuned into the needs of its customers when it comes to unified communications (UC). In this, she illustrates how the presence of a collaborative culture can increase the chances of UC adoption by between 5 and 10 times. This makes sense as those who value effective communication and collaboration are much more likely to be interested in ways of ways of enhancing interactions across the workforce, as well as with customers, suppliers and partners.
But what of those organisations at the other extreme with highly individualistic cultures in which minimal collaboration and sharing tends to take place? After all, quite a few of these exist.
The problem is that most of the messaging we hear from vendors and advocates in this space starts with the basic assumption that improved collaboration is a priority for all organisations. Indeed many prefix their pitches with a discussion of how the world in general is becoming more collaborative and interactive, almost as if the business community is homogenous in its ambition, direction and action.
Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. In a study we conducted in the middle of last year, for example, we found that at least 4 in 10 of the larger organisations interviewed placed no real priority on driving improvements in this area. While this finding in itself is significant, the picture becomes even more interesting when we look at which organisations are increasing the emphasis on sharing and collaborative working, and which are not.
What we can see here is not only a collaboration gap, but one that is getting wider. In a nutshell, those organisations that currently operate in highly collaborative manner are generally looking to drive even more collaboration. At the other extreme, while some recognise the imperative to get better, the majority of those with a highly individualistic culture are either standing still or moving backwards (just look at the red and amber segments on the bottom bar above).
To me, this is all a little worrying, as I see a lot of preaching to the converted going on out there, which is only going to reinforce this dynamic. I have already discussed the problems associated with advocates and evangelists not really appreciating what goes on outside of their echo chamber, and failing to connect with the mainstream. With vendors, it is more a case of business motivation, in that it is natural to direct your promotional material and sales force at those that are more likely to buy collaboration solutions. Along the way, many organisations that probably have a greater need than most to enable a more collaborative working environment, but do not realise this, are being left out in the cold.
Of course you could take the view that if an organisation doesn't appreciate the value of improvements in this domain then it deserves to be left behind, and I have read comments to this effect on various blog posts recently. Personally, I would prefer vendors and advocates to act on the principle put forward at the very beginning of this post, i.e. that environment and context are extremely important when trying to drive enlightenment, motivation and action. The trick is to move the discussion from a subjective to an objective footing, talking less about generic benefits, and more about specific scenarios that organisations of different kinds can relate to easily. My own view, as previously discussed, is that this objective approach is relevant regardless of the culture and environment currently in place.
Meanwhile, improved communication and collaboration will become even more of an imperative for many in the economic downturn (discussed in context here), so a more inclusive approach could be argued to be particularly appropriate in these challenging times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)