Executive Advisory Program

Forget H1N1; focus on STS

Posted by: Jack Santos

There is a disease among us that I call STS – stock ticker syndrome.  I experience the symptoms at least once a day.  Usually it’s someone asking me if I saw their email, or me asking someone else.  And usually the response is : “No..I never got it…let me look…oh there it is….sorry”.  Or, alternatively, “No – never got it, must have gone into spam”  (usually it’s sitting in the inbox).

The real problem is that in our 21st century communication system that we have built, these tidbits of information fly in and out so fast it is easy to miss something – like watching a stock ticker.  At any given minute of any given hour of any given day, you can see the emails coming in at a regular pace.  And many people do just that – mesmerized by the pattern.

Our Gartner/Burton content and collaboration guys have a good recommendation for this: software that “pulls” relevant info forward, and pushes “irrelevant” info back.  The real issue becomes what is relevant and not.

Vendors are jumping into the fray – Facebook comes at it with a social networking bent,  Google, in its typical “throw mud on the wall and see what sticks” approach, has already introduced multiple attempts (like “Wave”) -- the latest is “Buzz” for Gmail. Even collaboration tools like SharePoint (or Lotus Notes) think they have a solution. Twitter comes at it from a different direction…make the tidbits smaller, but more numerous; so if you can’t beat STS, join it .

They fact is that it’s just life as we know it, and we’ll have to get used to high “miss” rates….which is worrisome.  I suppose the argument could be made that the only difference with pre-internet life is that now we know (or can find out) what we missed, whereas before we would have no clue, and no way to find out. I suppose so.  But this is a troubling side effect of the information society, and not something the just “unified communications” (whatever that marketing term means) can solve…..But it’s an issue we (as management) need to focus on.

Just delivering new ways of funneling more information, and no context or filtering, (like Buzz) won’t help…

Adam and Eve’s Progeny Can Find Persistence with Apples

Posted by: Jack Santos

My apologies for the biblical allusions in the title, but reading rumors about the inevitable Apple Tablet brought me back to many years ago during a  dark, secret meeting deep in Apple labs.

I was sent as an emissary for a major Fortune 200 company, and Apple saw me as the techno-weenie to win over in order to keep a fairly lucrative contract for Macintoshes.  So they held no punches, pulled out the big guns, and showed me what then Apple Chief Technologist Dave Nagel felt was the hardware to end all hardware wars.  The crème de la crème, the “it’s not a desktop, it’s not a laptop, it’s not a handheld” answer to every techno geek’s dream.

It was the early 90s,  and it was “The Newton”.  Not just an apple from any tree, but one from within the Apple tree.  Even then, the prototyped envisioned always-on wireless capability, endless applications at the palm of your hand, ease of use at your fingertip (albeit with a stylus).

OK OK – they didn't get it right, and the Newton is on the dung heap of history. Sure, it was attempted during the Jobs hiatus – with Sculley in charge of all things visionary gone wrong.  But one thing you have to give the folks at Apple – they don’t give up.  I really think some of the visionary thinking and experimenting that went into the Newton is what has made the iPod, iPhone, and the impending tablet a commercial success.

A classic “If at first you don’t succeed…” story.  They didn’t succeed, they did try again, and the rest is history.  Stubbornness and persistence has gone a long way at Apple.  Right, Steve?

Metaphors, Models, Phases, and Stages

Posted by: Jack Santos

My fervent wish for 2010 is that all the cloud hoop-la from vendors dies a slow, gracious death, and we continue to hear about real-world examples of success using new, and different, business solutions. 

What's interesting about "cloud" is that it really isn't new -- but it does reinvigorate an option that has always been there for a CIO.   Many companies I speak to are excited by alternatives and potential new ways of doing the work – sometimes cheaper, frequently faster, and often better -- see my recent Burton Group doc on "Elastic Computing" for more (if you are a client).

But a home phone voice-mail failure brought home what cloud is really all about, and how (in a small consumer based example) it really is an old dog with old tricks.  In fact, it’s such an old dog, I think we can identify stages of computing based on cloud/non cloud maturity.

Stage 1:  Do it yourself (DIY) voice-mail:  You may all remember the answering machine – an early form of voice-mail – and how we flocked to it.  Yes, tapes, mini tapes, even memory chips were different incarnations of the “home answering machine”.  Prices started high (50-100 dollars or so in the 60s – I’d hate to think what that is in real dollars today)…and many of us went through multiple incarnations.  We set it up, had it take desk space, power, and mind-share (how do I replay that message?).  Then there was network based VM, and the game changed.,

Stage 2: The “almost cheap” voice-mail:  So somewhere in the 80s (maybe late 70s), the phone companies started offering phone based voice-mail.  Voice-mail in a cloud. And everyone flocked to that.  Ostensibly cheaper – it didn’t require an initial cash outlay, although over the life of the service it was way more expensive than Stage 1 DIY.  But, being creatures of habit and installment plans, why go back?  Out of sight, out of mind, a bit easier to use, no maintenance, no desk space, no fuss, no muss.  Did we worry about security?  rarely.  Everyone trusted Ma Bell’s children, and even after caller id hacks got strangers into celebrity mailboxes, no one blinked an eye.  Some of that applies today with commercial cloud usage… cheapness is just a mirage, a trade-off…security a dream.  But most consumers are willing to accept the shortcomings.  And those that don’t just had a little less desk space available.

Stage 3: The ubiquitous, duplicitous voice mail:by the 90s, and 00s cell phones were in vogue, and – guess what – whether you liked it or not  you got an answering machine thrown in – either through an explicit charge, or as a hidden charge.  Voice-mail in a cloud, on steroids. Try to get a cell without a voice-mail account – the best you can do is turn it off – but it’s still there and you pay for it.  Now everyone has multiple voice-mails, using multiple protocols, an inability to integrate across systems (or at least an unwillingness by the carriers), and a fair amount of frustration by consumers.  Ubiquity not only has its costs, but also its confusion – and we live with that today.  Except for the ones without cell phones, and with the box on their desk.  And for cell phones – driven by mobility and anytime/anywhere access – there is no desk.

Which brings us to stage 4:  A world were some people (at least for this commodity example) still have the DIY option running (although they are few and far between since land lines are disappearing faster than the Ross ice shelf)… and “cloud” solutions are on the brink of bringing some level of sanity to the confusion of ubiquity – Google Voice is a prime example.  An answering machine of choice that can handle all the different ways of reaching you, and has one set of features – accessible on-line, integrated with email, messaging (did anyone say Unified Communications?).  This is a world where services are even more distinctly defined, unbundled, and offered over the internet. The "voice-mail as a service" stage.

This, my friends, is a stage still in the making for most compute services today;  It’s a stage that encourages entrepreneurial solutions, and solves problems in ways that weren’t  capable just a few year before. Answering machines have shown us the way

Mike Rollings– Research Director for our Enterprise Architecture service, makes the case for an even more advanced stage of “voice-mail as a service” leading to a single voice-mail service for users that works seamlessly with other phone functions.  I suppose one can make the argument that things like Google voice, rather than being viewed as just  a pure “integration engine” (not unlike the old screen scraper metaphor for desktop integration) is a step toward that. 

So what do YOU think?  Do these stages begin to form a model for computing maturity in an era of clouds?  Does the history-of-the-answering-machine metaphor hold true for most commodity services, and maybe even some non-commodity ones?

The Cell is going to POTS..or not

Posted by: Jack Santos

Everybody loves handheld (like iPhone) data and web access.  In fact, in a recent call with a very large west coast chip company, their IT’ers found it hard to believe that the trend was for senior execs to not take a laptop with them, and totally rely on a cell (Blackberry, iPhone) for access.

But that said, let’s just talk about POTS (plain old telephone service).

But wait, it isn't that plain anymore, especially on the iPhone.

Besides the normal AT&T service (enter a number, call, talk, hang up, see the minutes on my monthly AT&T bill)  I now have 2 other options that I typically use overseas:

Skype:

Find a WIFI signal, open the Skype app, dial a phone number, talk, hang up, get billed 3-30 cents a minute, based on country, anywhere in the world (pay with PayPal).

And now (as of Sept)

Vonage:

Find a WIFI signal, open the Vonage app, dial a phone number, talk, hang up, get billed 5-25 cents/minute, based on country; a minimum 35 cents monthly charge, even if not used)

   -or –

Get within 3G range, open the Vonage app, dial a phone number, talk, hang up, get billed the same Vonage rate as above plus use my AT&T minutes (i.e., its a double dip - the minutes show up on my monthly AT&T bill because the call gets routed to a Vonage access point phone number, and then forwarded to the number you dialed).

From a geek perspective – this is all really cool. And has great potential for reducing my overseas phone bill (which IMHO has always been a rip-off).

From a POTS perspective – can we (the telecom/software industry) make this anymore complicated?  I’ll bet we can…but I suppose freedom of choice always is more complicated..note  (in the US) the result of the original Bell system breakup, or energy deregulation.

Wait until we can use any third party VOIP technology over the traditional 3G/4G network (lots of behind the scenes fighting going on over that right now).  Something Paul Debeasi has been predicting for some time now (Paul is our mobility analyst). His blog is here. Paul has been doing research on mobility and cell phone policies and governance within organizations – an area seeing a lot of change lately, as evidenced by these options.  Makes for a lot of strategy options for the traditional carriers (to put a positive spin on it).

In the meantime, road warriors are loving it, and my EU travel phone bill is down by 80%.

What I learned during my blogging hiatus: observation #1

It’s been a while since I blogged – mostly due to the Catalyst conference and workload.  But in an attempt to get back in the swing of things, I’ll be posting a series of short “What I learned during my blogging hiatus” pieces that maybe be thought provoking, and an indication of what is on my mind….

#1: and the winner is….

Apple has the mobility market.  a choke point similar to Windows on the desktop in the 80s-90s (to present).

It has become clear, through conversations and interactions:

• Palm lost it; Treo is totally disregarded by even those who have tried it.  The only hold-ons are those are enamored of its legacy UI
• Windows/MS is out of the picture entirely.  Someone in Redmond was asleep at the switch.
• The G-phone has no traction except for geekdom. A lesson for the new Chrome OS?
• Blackberry is totally running on inertia, and IT support structures – which are evolving rapidly.
• Apple has, in a short time, gathered the kind of head of steam (through apps ( mostly),  and an excellent, innovative UI; their lead has monopoly power; watch for more regulatory intervention.
• Nokia, Samsung, etc.  Good luck. Edge players, at best.  The 4B strong human phone market is large enough it will support many smaller, targeted solutions – but it will be crumbs, and irrelevant to the enterprise..

There is a risk to the iPhone – mainly security and encryption and remote administration.  But it is one most organizations are willing to take, especially the senior staff of most of those firms.

It is a reign that will last at least 5-7 years, depending on pricing and further Apple innovation.  It is also changing how we interact – even shorter messages, limited typing, more twitter like, and mucho mucho multimedia. …and it will impact the laptop market.

Look around next time you are in a public space (train station, airport, park).  The near-majority of folks are on iPhones.  Those that aren’t rue the day they can be. And new iPhone apps are exacerbating the demand.

Train Conversation

posted by: Jack Santos

Interesting interaction on the train the other day.  Conductor saw me on the laptop, and we got into a conversation about how he is not very computer fluent, and needs to get a new one.  Doesn’t want to spend time learning new things, a poor typist, and didn’t like the weight of his laptop – but he was eyeing my tiny Dell.

He asked me for advice.  I asked him what he used it for.  No Word. No Excel. (or not much). Mostly internet usage, and consumer type stuff. The smaller the better, and anytime anywhere access (like 3G) a plus. Time to replace his cell, too.

My prediction: another iPhone aficionado is in the making. And the laptop/desktop consumer market?   A candidate for cannibalization.  Watch out.

Pick a phone - get a network.

posted by: Jack Santos

Dave Passmore  (Research Director for our Network and Telecom Strategies coverage; he blogs here) recently made a comment that caught my attention:

    * With the Iphone, the cell phone world has changed from "pick a network - get a phone" to  "pick a phone - get a network".

I think it shows that with ubiquitous cell coverage, the network is a commodity.  Consumers drive selection, and they now focus on what's in their hands, not what network has better coverage.

Which makes me wonder when it will be:

    * "pick a phone -  pick a network"

That's what the AT&T landline breakup gave us...now the only question is when that will happen with US cell services (the rest of the world is ahead of us on this one....)

Dave tells me it may go in a different direction:

    *  "pick an application - get a phone and a network"

I am not sure about that...I think phones have made the transition from single use devices to platforms - it would be kind of like picking a radio and getting a car.

...unless one thinks of the entire phone/platform as an application suite.....hmmmm....

We know who you are and where you are

Posted by:  Jack

Today's WSJ had a great piece on an emerging (actually here but underutilized) technology -- position reporting via cellphone.  Not totally unrelated to what techno-geeks call Unified Communications (UC) , or more specifically a "presence" feature of UC.  "Presence" usually refers to someone's state (are they online or offline, available for a call, or on the phone?) and it's a feature often used as a reason for UC...Now these people tracking cell services are "presence on steroids", and can open a whole new dialogue about just how available we want to, or need to, be.

By now, Sears, Fedex, and UPS drivers have gotten used to big brother; want to stop for that coffee in a rest stop by the scenic overlook?  Your boss will know....extend that to friends and family, and you get the picture (well, at this stage you get a map, but a picture may be next since these phones have cameras too).

I first got exposed to this technology when phones first started arriving with GPS installed (now mandatory)about 4 years ago.  A local hacker had a website (gadgeteer.org) where you could download a piece of code to report on your phone's location.  At the time, my intent was to put it on my 90 year old father-in-law's phone; he annually rambles on a cross country car trip and, of course, we're always curious where he is.

Not a bad application, as long as the person using the phone knows about it.  Last month, Sprint rolled out a similar service for family plans, and I quickly signed up my teen and college age children.  The divergence of reaction was interesting.  When I warned them  I was about to try the new service out (they would have access to my location as well), one overreacted with "you are invading my privacy!!". The other was ho-hum about it.  She only raised an eyebrow when told by her brother (wrongly) that I could also read her instant messages using the same technology.  After a quick "well  that's another story" reaction, she finally said she didn't care about that as well; she was confident that after reading a few IMs that she sends to boys that I would quickly lose interest.  No doubt very true.

It amazed me how fast cell phones and IM replaced pagers, putting  a whole business sector out to pasture.  Will this technology, already available, make most employees trackable like delivery men? Only on-call ones?  Or maybe it should be limited to high value employees, like NY Governors, or US Presidents.  Then again, maybe not.  Ooops, I forgot; they already have a GPS enabled cell phone....

UC - What have we wrought?

Posted by: Jack Santos

The term "Unified Communications" (UC) seems to be popping up everywhere – like it’s the next "Virtualization". I stopped short of calling the over generalized "UC" speak a bunch of Malarkey (see my blog entry "The Un-Unified Communicator") because, as a way of thinking about voice/data convergence and where technology is going, there is a lot to UC.

Then comes a CIO online article written by yours truly, followed by one that goes into real-world experiences at Virgin Entertainment Group ( How to get the most from Unified Communications); Also, check out the earlier piece that predicts voice mail’s demise by 2009 (Is that NEXT YEAR already?). Give me a break!

So I was in a conversation with someone who is raving about UC, and describing how it won’t matter if you are on IM, SMS, email, or phone – send an IM to someone, if they prefer the phone it could get converted to voice and you can get the IM that way (computer generated) then speak a response and have the IM user see your response delivered in text.

Somebody, shoot me now.

Besides the obvious time-lapse tricks ( I guess my daughter can type as fast as she speaks on her cell), this has really got to be something only a techhie could love.  It's bad enough when Vonage delivers my voice mails to my email in text.

Or the conversation about emerging corporate rules of engagement; check to see if the person you want to speak to  is online (presence), send them an IM to tell them you are going to call them to speak to them about something that you should have walked over to the next office and had a face to face about!

Oh what have we wrought?

Yes – UC is something we need to pay attention to. Leading edge companies are doing some real neat things. But guess what – just go ahead and upgrade that PBX to IP, and listen to what your business partner needs for their call center. Then you, too, can call that UC.

The Un-unified Communicator

Is Unified Communications ("UC") on the CxO radar? Don't count on it. Should it be?

In fact, it's time to rant -- what is UC anyways? We (Burton Group) have a lot of research on it (current or proposed) -- a nice mix of the next stage of VoIP, mixed in with "presence-based" applications, and spices of IM and video conferencing. MS and Cisco use the buzzword a lot to push their follow-on products, mostly to replace an older PBX with something sexy. Call centers and work-at-home seem fertile ground for UC, whatever UC is.

OK - so what is UC again?

I have come to the conclusion (not unlike most CIOs) that UC is still a vision and long term strategy -- really the recognition of an overall trend with communications. As Mike Gotta (one of Burton Group's UC gurus) says:  “UC needs to be treated as a program managed over the long term through a governance process”.

Vendors, on the other hand, take the UC moniker and run with it (any surprises there?) to sell products that may/may not be ready for prime time. The reality is that the buzz around “Unified Communications” will only be real when applications get developed based on the underlying technologies – and so far there has been no “killer app”. 

From a business perspective, “UC” (as a whole) is a technology vision and architectural framework, with no real ROI or business driver.  Business groups and end-users don’t really care about UC –they care about the productivity value from the tools and applications they interact with every day to get the work done. ROIs come at the project level, as different components of the UC framework get implemented (like VoIP,  corporate IM, or desktop video conferencing).

So if it’s a long term vision and strategy, should a CIO care? Sure, with IP based telephony, traditional enterprise telephony is under attack; software plays a significant role in delivering voice, and new “UC” products, such as those from Microsoft (Office Communications Server), will influence the market.

Most CIOs don't care about UC -- they care about the applications, and those applications will be delivered piecemeal, and should be part of a long term understanding of the trends and convergence that is going on with technology--- which is what UC really is.

Point-in-time decisions made at a project level (such as a PBX upgrade decision) will be viewed as evolutionary, functional replacements of current technology with the latest and greatest solutions. Other leading edge projects might see the fundamental workflow and integration that "UC" class technologies bring to the table, and make the case (ROI and otherwise) for significant change -- but with sound business drivers and business sponsorship.

UC clearly needs to be on the Enterprise Architect's radar and, through governance, a framework that an organization uses for technology decisions involving the technologies and applications that UC encompasses. As a result, CIO awareness of UC is important, but what is more important is the skepticism that a CIO needs to have when approached by vendors that have the ultimate "Unified Communications" product.