Book Review “Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest Challenges” by Andrew McAfee

Enterprise 2.0 it’s a book about how businesses are using a new set of technologies that appeared over the past few years on the Internet under the new web era known as Web 2.0.

The book has four many purposes:

1)      Describe how to use new and strange tech and tech-base communities: blogs, Facebook,  Wikis, prediction markets, the Page Rank algorithm, Delicious and mention others.

2)      Point how these techs differ but also share deep similarities that make them part of the same trend.

3)      Illustrate how companies and other organizations are applying these techs.

4)      Provide some key points to succeed with Enterprise 2.0.

According to MacAfee, Tim O’Reilly began using the term “Web 2.0” to describe the business revolution in the computer industry caused by shift of internet form a the traditional functionality to review content to the new approach of participation, where users came contributors of web content though blogs and wikis. Then MacAfee points that the availability of this content evokes New Collaborative Tools that organizations can use to overcome internal challenges. Based on this conclusion, he coined the term Enterprise 2.0 to describe how these same tech could be used on organizations’ intranets and extranets, and convey the impact they would have on business results.

Enterprise 2.0 is a phenomenon that has changed the way the world does business. It has opened a new frontier for coordinating work, presaging a revolution in innovation and productivity. To illustrate this the author presents four company cases and how the use of Web 2.0 helped the company to solve the issues they were facing.

In the first case Vista Print Company was and small business started with a viral campaign where could obtain 250 business cards for the cost of shipping only. This strategy along with the use of tech to maintain low cost lead the company to an impressive growth because they were able to convince clients to pay between 10 to 20 USD to get better cards. Over time they expanded their product lines to presentation folder, letterhead, notepads, postcard, calendar, sticky notes, brochures, pens, hats, t-shirts and much more.

At one point of the time the company was big with business across US and Europe. Then the company had three problems: 1) Capturing and sharing its accumulated knowledge, 2) Training new employees in a rapidly growing company 2) Redundant work since the good ideas developed in each location were not shared.

To solve this problem Vista Print employed a wiki, a web 2.0 app, to capture and spread knowledge. Wiki allowed people in the company to add or change something, and all edits were tracked and eventually could be reverted. The important thing in wikis is to maintain the ability to see who did what, and undo anything that turned out not to be good contribution. With this implementation companies succeeded their problems and were able to accumulate the knowledge of experienced people.

Wikis, address the challenges of version control and simultaneous editing. It keeps all the contributions from all collaborators in one central repository, making it impossible to have different versions. Google docs, it’s a wiki like word processor and shows other when edition is happening.

In the second case Serena Software wanted to help companies to build “mashups”-combinations of two or more existing enterprise system and their data. But that implies letting go centralized control over IT. This trend started because companies like Google “opened up” their applications, allowing anyone to use it and extend popular programs without up-front permission. A famous one was Chicago Crime, a mashup of Google maps with crime data that allowed looking crime patters in neighborhoods.

The issue of Serena Software was a little sense of its community. Although they have worked together for more than one decade in their homes, nobody knew anything about each other. These weak social ties started to impede employees to accomplish important and novel work.

Serena Company used Facebook (voluntarily) to help build a stronger and more consistent corporate culture. It was dynamic, interesting and addictive for many people. Facebook gave its users tools to assemble a network of people, stay on top of what these people were doing and provide their own updates to the network. They made an event called “Facebook Friday” where people engaged to each other. The companies also educated users about Facebook and conducted training for the corporate use of it, to create slices of their profiles to share the right information and avoid posting offensive topics. Eventually the company wanted to be approachable to all their customers and show transparency. In short Facebook did what the company own intranet could not do, helped the knit the enterprise together more tightly.

The third case lies when US government failed to detect the Twin Tower attack because there was a lack of effective information sharing both whiting and across intelligence agencies, since each one has its own database. They had enough information to prevent the attack but due to the formal chains of command information, no one was able to connect the dots. They conclude that the biggest impediment was the systematic resistance to sharing information. US intelligence community was a non-dense network, that is, it was a network riddled with structural holes that were not spanned.

This caused a change on the policies no only allowing official access to intelligence but also protecting the data. The solution was another Web 2.0 technology.

US government after the attacks started using blogs in a project called Intellipedia, which consists of three wikis running on different agencies. The levels of classification allowed for information on the three wikis are Top Secret, Secret, and Sensitive. This information is used by individuals with appropriate clearances from the 16 agencies of the IC and other national-security related organizations, including Combatant Commands and other federal departments. The wikis are not open to the public.

The fourth case is about Google. Bo Cowgill a collaborator of the company read the book “The Wisdom of Crows” which point that collective intelligence can be more accurate that the one a group or individual have. He came up with the idea that in the corporate world companies remain indifferent to the potential information of the collective wisdom of their employees.

As result of this idea Cowgill convince some Googlers to devote 20 percent of time to build new ideas. Some of the results were Google news, Adsense and Google prediction market. Today Google has many applications, to the extent that they develop a map of their applications into the shape of the elements table.

Google’s Periodic Table of APIs and Products

Despite this cases Enterprise 2.0 has two faces, on one side potential benefits, but on the other so many risk associated.

On the optimistic side, community-building networking applications and services can successfully link customers, suppliers, partners, and employees for fast and easy collaboration. This instant connectivity and flexibility can bring greater efficiency, effective data sharing, and brightness into business processes, and, ideally, improved profitability

On the other hand Web 2.0 tools bring potential risks for the company, including: inappropriate content or applications, higher risk of viruses, worms, and malware; It also may lead into accidental or malicious data loss, lack of control, risk of people releasing information that is not supposed to be made public – either on purpose or by mistake. In the case of the Facebook, personal opinions related organization and its customers, negative internal comment, negative external comment, loss of productivity and flaws in the network security.

In conclusion, the use of Enterprise 2.0 includes benefits such as group editing, authoring, broadcast, search, network formation and maintenance, collective intelligence, and self-organization. However big companies prefer to avoid his usage since the fears associated with this technology can be greater than the benefits. Such fears include the misuse of wiki, blogs, use the web to watch pornography, sexual harassment, denigration of the company, bad talk about leaders, creation of nasty discussions, use of forums to talk about movies, waste of time in non-work related conversations, leak of information, risk of hackers, virus, works among others. Finally in my opinion small companies with not very much infrastructure can use this technology with less fears that the big ones, because this can help them to be more productive, but they obviously have to take some preventive actions.

References:

McAfee, A. (2009). Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest Challenges. Boston: Mcgraw-Hill Professional.

Google’s Periodic Table of APIs and Products

Google’s Periodic Table of APIs and Products

Book Summary – A close up on “Democratizing Innovation” by Eric von Hippel

In this book Eric von Hippel explains how and why users of products and services (either in the form of firms or individuals) develop and freely reveal innovations resulting in what he names “Democratization of Innovation”.

Traditionally innovation of products and services is developed by manufacturers in a closed ways, using patents and copyrights to protect intellectual property and user’s role consist only in have needs. In this fashion the author define “Users” as firms or individual consumers that expect to benefit from using a product or service. “Manufacturers” expect to benefit from selling a product or service as a result of their innovations. So, Mass manufacturer’s strategy is to meet needs of heterogeneous users and capture profits form a large number of them, what is called “a few sizes fit all”

On the non-traditional side “user centered innovation”, users are the first to develop innovation in products. This occurs because manufacturers produce standard products that do not fulfill at all everybody’s needs. Hence, users using a standard product can make adjustments or add-ons to develop exactly what they require.

As follows a company or individual can play the role either of manufacturer innovator or user innovator. For example if we look at Boeing innovations for the airplanes it sells, then it is a manufacturer innovator. On the other hand Boeing has developed machinery in to build airplanes, and then it is also a user innovator.

According to research on this field 10 to 40% of users develop or modify products. In order for this to happen two conditions must take place: 1) They want something that is not available on the market and 2) they are able and willing to pay for its development.

Once these conditions are taking place there are two options: 1) Hire a custom manufacturer that is more likely to do it faster, better and cheaper or 2) Self-Development. Surprisingly, users prefer Self-Development mainly because a) Agency Cost- the cost to monitor, commit and audit outcome to assure that the agent is following the interest of the principal- and b) Enjoyment of the innovation process.

In short, customer wants the right product at their own budget and manufacturer want to lower cost reusing elements they already have and predict what other will want in the future. The author proves mathematically that is better to go for self-development when they have unique needs and that manufactures is the most economical options when “n” users want the same thing.

An example is when a user requires a unique climbing boot that fit his particular technique and he has a desired price for it. The manufacturer would use his current tech and will not want to learn a new way to bond the components that fit the user requirements. Any deviation on this would impact the user technique and cost for him. As a result when a user wants something special they will often get the best result by innovating themselves. Moreover they feel stimulated with the enjoyment of innovation.

Innovators can combine and leverage their efforts to increase their success chances. This result in innovation communities where users and manufacturers develop, test and diffuse their innovations. One example of is Wikipedia, which is an open information community.

Freely reveal is explicable because gives benefit for enhancement of reputation, positive network, diffusion on innovation. Without revealing innovations multiple users would have to innovate themselves, on the other hand a revealed innovation comes to a public good that impacts the social efficiency. Manufacturers contribute partially because they offer innovator products but never the information to replicate the product.

Unluckily the actual intellectual property law favour manufacturers over user innovators since in US made an illegal practice to modify products on the market, much of them prototypes of innovation, making this policy not neutral respect to the source of innovation.

Along revealing innovation “Democratizing of innovations” is causing a shift on manufactures form design their own innovations to better commercialize an innovation that lead user have. This latter approach can provide a better interface to the innovation process and so better performance. In 3M sales of lead users resulted in $146 million vs. $18 million of forecasted sales per year

In the same shift, other firms are partitioning product-development into need intensive subtasks that area assigned to users along with a kit of tools that enable them to execute. In 2003 more than $15 mill of semiconductors had been designed with this approach.

A great example to summarize the entire book is when von Hippel cites Larry Stanley, a windsurfer that developed a small board with foodstraps to keep the board attached while in air. This innovation allowed him to jump higher and go faster on waves in the late 1970´s. Today the footstrap is considered a standard feature on windsurf boards.

This example illustrates key components of innovation development by users. First, the act of use itself creates new needs and desires among users that lead to the creation of new equipment and techniques. Second, user cooperation in communities is critical to prototyping, improving, and diffusing solutions to those needs. Working jointly allows rapid development and simultaneous experimentation, however working jointly also requires that users openly reveal their ideas and prototypes to others. Third, user innovations – even after they have been freely revealed – are sometimes commercialized.

In conclusion the shift caused by the democratization of innovation has created welfare through innovation communities, lead innovators and individual innovation and its forcing changes not only in manufacturer innovation practices, but also the need of neutral regulations. This new scenario is taking out the manufacturers as “Standard Innovators” and creates new possibilities for customized users.

References:

von Hippel, E. (2005) “Democratizing Innovation”. Boston,MA: MIT Press. Home page at MIT: http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/index.html

Windows 8 se lanzará en 2012 y será compatible con Tabletas y PC, La realidad mexicana de muchas empresas es que siguen utilizando la versión XP de 10 años atrás.

El pasado 13 de septiembre de 2011 Microsoft develó o que será su nuevo sistema operativo, Windows 8, durante la conferencia ‘All Things D’s D9 ‘realizada en Rancho Palos Verdes (California, EU). Este nuevo desarrollo es la respuesta a las innovaciones hechas por sus principales competidores Apple con MAC Os y en Tabletas Mac y Androide. En palabras de Steven Sinfosky, Director de Windows Live,Microsoft pretende: Re-inventar Windows desde los circuitos hasta la experiencia de uso-“Re-imagine Windows, from the chipset to the experience”.

De acuerdo con el mismo Sinfosky, este nuevo sistema operativo  no ha intentado copiar la interface y las funcionalidades del iPad de Apple. Más bien confirmó que Windows 8 se inspiró en Windows Phone 7. Honestamente después de ver el video de la presentación, este nuevo Windows 8 se asemeja mucho a la interface MAC y Androide.

Un gran cambio en relación con Windows 7 de toque es la visual pues el tradicional escritorio ahora es una pantalla de estilo táctil que se convertirá en el predeterminado “inicio” de pantalla para sus usuarios. El tradicional escritorio “de archivos y carpetas” sigue siendo accesible, pero ahora en forma de una “app”.

“Los iconos cosa del pasado para representar apps”. Lo nuevo es el  “Estilo Metro” que es la pantalla de inicio personal que se llena de “Azulejos Vivientes” o Widgets en tiempo real. Por ejemplo, una ficha de calendario puede mostrar su próxima cita, mientras la ejecución del app mostrará el calendario completo.

Aquí les dejo un video para que vean el prototipo de Windows 8:

Por ultimo debo mencionar que el en mundo de la innovación se habla mucho de que esta es resultado de varios años de pequeñas innovaciones hasta que se llega a algo mejor. Windows XP,  “XP” provienen de la palabra eXPeriencia, fue lanzado el 25 de octubre de 2001, exactamente hace 10 años y sigue siendo el sistema más utilizado no solo en México sino en el mundo. Puedo decir que me ha tocado ver computadoras diseñadas para Windows Vista y Windows 7, utilizando XP. Las implicaciones de esto es Microsoft ha dejado de dar soporte para la versión XP y no solo eso, sino que también las nuevas aplicaciones están diseñadas para funcionar con sistemas operativos más recientes. Es entonces un reto para aquellas empresas y usuarios que se quedaron en el pasado actualizarse en lo que promete ser una probadita de lo nuevo. Este reto claramente es una oportunidad de negocio para aquellos que puedan asesorar a empresas en hacer una transición de sistemas sin tanto dolor y capacitar a los usuarios para que reconozcan las funcionalidades que ofrecen las nuevas interfaces.

Referencias:

Microsoft aims to kill the icon with Windows 8 by Rafael Ruffolo

http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/microsoft-aims-to-kill-the-icon-with-windows-8/143938

Microsoft Prepares Windows 8 for Battle Against the iPad by Ben Parr

http://mashable.com/2011/09/13/windows-8-column/#25789Windows-division-President-Steven-Sinofsky

Microsoft Reimagines Windows, Presents Windows 8 Developer Preview by Windows Videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hq95vtoS28

Delivering Happiness: The best experience in the world

Verificacion

Zappos: Customer Service Isn’t Just A Department!

We’ve been asked by a lot of people how we’ve grown so quickly, and the answer is actually really simple… We’ve aligned the entire organization around one mission: to provide the best customer service possible. Internally, we call this our WOW philosophy.

McDonald’s – Much Maligned, But an Engine of Economic Development (Adrian E. Tschoegl, Wharton)

Critics have excoriated the US fast-food industry in general, and McDonald’s most particularly,both per se and as a symbol of the United States. However, examining McDonald’s internationalizationand development abroad suggests that McDonald’s and the others of its ilk are sourcesof development for mid-range countries. McDonald’s brings training in management, encouragesentrepreneurship directly through franchises and indirectly through demonstration effects, createsbackward linkages that develop local suppliers, fosters exports by their suppliers, and has positiveexternal effects on productivity and standards of service, cleanliness, and quality in the hosteconomies.

McDonald’s does not lack criticism. However, examination of its internationaloperations raises the possibility that perhaps it deserves some plaudits too,suggesting the appropriateness of a more nuanced assessment. The anecdotalevidence suggests that various aspects of its presence in host countries deservefurther investigation. It would be worthwhile for researchers to establish the scaleof the benefits that McDonald’s and its fast food brethren bring in the areas ofproviding management training, encouraging entrepreneurship, developing localsuppliers, promoting exports, and improving productivity, standards of service,and animal welfare.However, the little statistical exercise in the previous sections suggeststwo caveats. First, cross-national studies are not likely to be useful in testing theargument and establishing the scale of the benefits; intra-country case studies andsurveys are more likely to prove fruitful. Secondly, the results suggest theexistence of a virtuous circle: countries that succeed in institutionalizing somerule of law and that are open to the world will be recipients of McDonald’spresence and the attendant benefits. Countries that cannot meet these criteria willbe left behind.

FULL DOCUMENT AT: http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?context=gej&article=1327&date=&mt=MTMwMDQ4NjM0OQ==&access_ok_form=Continue

What do burger prices tell us about the reliability of official inflation figures? (The Economist)

MANY people suspect that some governments are fiddling their inflation figures, and that the true rate is much higher than officially reported. Economists disagree on the best way to measure consumer-price inflation, so why not rely on burgernomics? The Economist’s Big Mac index was devised as a lighthearted gauge to whether currencies are under- or overvalued, but it can also be used to cross-check official inflation rates. We have compared Big Mac prices late last year with those ten years earlier.  For example, the price of a burger in China rose by an annual average of 3.7%, against the reported inflation rate of 2.3%. That discrepancy was no bigger than in America. However, burgernomics does support claims that Argentina’s government is cooking the books. The gap between its average annual rate of burger inflation (19%) and its official rate (10%) is far bigger than in any other country. Its government deserves a good grilling. For more on Big Mac inflation, see article.

Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/01/big_mac_index

Personal Finance Tips by Kathy Boyle (Source: Business Week Video)

Video. Consejos para mejorar tus finanzas personales.

http://bizweektv.pb.feedroom.com/businessweek/bizweektv/pboneclip/player.swf?SiteID=bizweektv&SkinName=pboneclip&SiteName=bizweektv&StoryID=b9ef2f476bfb687b74a3aa4d025285bff4dbebcc&MaximumNumberOfStories=&AutoPlay=false&mute=false&Volume=.5&tilenumber=&tilemargin=&videoratio=&detailsheight=&Environment=&SendEMailURL=http%3A%2F%2F%25SiteID%25.feedroom.com/custom/playerbuilder/feedroom/sendMail.jsp

How the cloud story evolves in 2011. (Forbes)

http://video.forbes.com/fvn/business-intelligence/how-the-cloud-story-evolves-in-2011

Corporate News: Twitter’s Value Is Set at $1 Billion !!!!! (WSJ)

Corporate News: Twitter’s Value Is Set at $1 Billion

Jessica E. Vascellaro, Michael Corkery. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Sep 25, 2009. pg. B.3

Twitter Inc. is nearing a deal for as much as $100 million in new funding that would buy the fast-growing Internet-messaging company more time to figure out its business model, according to people familiar with the situation.

The investor group is expected to include mutual-fund giant T. Rowe Price Group Inc. and private-equity firm Insight Venture Partners, which would be new investors to Twitter. Existing Twitter investors, including Spark Capital and Institutional Venture Partners, are also expected to participate in the round, according to the people familiar with the plan.

The investors are valuing Twitter — which has yet to generate more than a trickle of revenue — at about $1 billion, according to these people. That’s more than triple the valuation Twitter received during its last round of capital raising in February, underscoring how quickly the company has grown.

Twitter, based in San Francisco, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Led by Chief Executive Evan Williams and co-founder Biz Stone, the microblogging service — which allows people to send out short 140-character messages — had 54.7 million unique visitors world-wide in August, up from 4.3 million in August 2008, according to comScore Inc.

The surge has drawn a frenzy of interest from investors, marketers and companies making software that allows people to send photos or videos over Twitter. The company has also piqued the interest of Internet giants like Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp., which have pitched Twitter on potential arrangements to help it sell advertising, according to people familiar with the matter.

Representatives for both companies declined to comment.

Twitter’s new valuation creates a higher bar for any potential suitor to buy the company. Twitter executives have repeatedly said they aren’t interested in cashing in on their early buzz and are committed to building an independent and sustainable business. The company recently hired several senior employees from Google and elsewhere. In a May interview, Mr. Williams said the company, then just 45 employees, could have more than 90 staffers by the end of 2009.

Still, the company has struggled to develop a business model. In recent months, Twitter executives have said they are working on developing possible premium services for business but haven’t unveiled any such products. It did take a step in that direction earlier this year, announcing a service that verified users that it said it may roll out to businesses.

In May, Mr. Stone said in a company blog post that Twitter is leaving “the door open for exploration” around advertising.

Twitter also faces competition from companies such as Facebook Inc. that have also rolled out Twitter-like features. Facebook has opened up its site to allow people to share more of their content and notes publicly, for instance. The ability for people to broadcast messages to anyone who wants to read them, and not just their friends or people they know, has been one of Twitter’s big draws.

Earlier this year, T. Rowe Price and Fidelity Investments invested $50 million in Slide Inc., a maker of social-networking applications, valuing it at $550 million. But amid the recession, Slide has had to refocus its business strategy.

Source:

Jessica E. Vascellaro, & Michael Corkery. (2009, September 25). Corporate News: Twitter’s Value Is Set at $1 Billion. Wall Street Journal  (Eastern Edition),  p. B.3.  Retrieved February 6, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1865898321).