Collaborative Strategy Guild » Collaboration

Which company is more social?

Karen Hobert — Wed, 19 May 2010 17:33:00 +0000

Nice graphics and details on the use of social media at top firms. I find the IBM numbers low, probably because IBM has so many private social networks which would not be reflected in these charts. So does that mean that Microsoft personnel use public social networks more because the company hasn't establish strong private social networks? Or is IBMs lower use of public networks a sign of weaker ties to external connections?

Click here to full chart.
Continue reading: Which company is more social?

The Evolution of Privacy on Facebook

Karen Hobert — Fri, 14 May 2010 18:56:00 +0000

Seems that Facebook is the latest privacy poster-child highlighting the strains that come between a service provider seeking a way to cash-in on our desire to socialize and the responsibility the provider assumes to protect its users.

Recent blog posts and articles have recently come out on the (de)evolution of privacy on Facebook since 2005. Kurt Opsahl of the EFF provides an handy timeline of changes to Facebook's Terms of Service through the years. This posting prompted Matt McKeon at IBM Research's Center for Social Software to create a more specific timeline and interactive chart (click on image below for link to interactive chart and blog post).

Matt points out on his blog:

However, Facebook hasn't always managed its users' data well. In the beginning, it restricted the visibility of a user's personal information to just their friends and their "network" (college or school). Over the past couple of years, the default privacy settings for a Facebook user's personal information have become more and more permissive. They've also changed how your personal information is classified several times, sometimes in a manner that has been confusing for their users. This has largely been part of Facebook's effort to correlate, publish, and monetize their social graph: a massive database of entities and links that covers everything from where you live to the movies you like and the people you trust.

In a May 13th blog post, Ken Opsahl continues his coverage and urges Facebook to "follow its own Principles." According to Opsahl, Facebook's current privacy practices coupled with Elliot Scrage's (Facebook's VP for Public Policy) flippant responses in a recent NYT readers' question and answer piece, amount to a boatload of double-speak coming out of Palo Alto when it comes to user data privacy.

Social software wants to be open by nature. Which is crux of the current Facebook privacy kerfuffle. Without openness connections can't be made. However, with any social group there are implied rules for who can participate, what gets shared, and how. From a user's point of view, social wants to be open, but not that open.

A third party, who's purpose it is to facilitate, moderate, and monetize social activity, can be at odds to the purpose of the user. It is the third purpose of the service provider, making money, that creates the tailspin. Today Facebook takes the point of view that the act of registering for a Facebook account is implicit permission for Facebook to use any information a user posts for Facebooks own purposes (we're talking about making money here). Facebook is not just there to facilitate the connections that users want to make. After all, Facebook isn't free for Facebook.

If you look at Matt's interactive chart big changes happened between 2007 and 2009. Yea, I know a whole year, but I suspect 2008 would show some other interesting data, like jumps in numbers of users, increased numbers of applications, and even increased investment into Facebook. In other words Facebook's business changed and the opening up of user data provided the means for creating monetary value in Facebook.

Social networking has reached a tipping point where the "trust" levels are diminishing as usage rises. As more people and applications use the information we post in social networks, the more skittish we become. Not without reason, the rise in spam/malware attacks, bullying, "checking-up on" by employers/neighbors/creditors, and identity theft on social media is an indication of how valuable the social media dirt is to others. Of course users want more protections with consistent policies and experiences. But maybe we're gonna have to pay for that luxury.

State of the Internet

Karen Hobert — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:49:00 +0000

Nice reality check.

JESS3 / The State of The Internet from Jesse Thomas on Vimeo.

Continue reading: State of the Internet

Mitigating Risk and Finding Opportunity in Software as a Service (SaaS) E-mail for Small and Medium Businesses

Karen Hobert — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:47:40 +0000

Announcing the latest CSG publication, “Mitigating Risk and Finding Opportunity in Software as a Service E-mail for Small and Medium Businesses.” You can download the white paper here or go to our Research page.

Software as a Service (SaaS) e-mail offerings provide some operational productivity benefits at lower prices, although it is not a silver bullet, and should not be considered a compromise to existing solutions. SaaS e-mail service bundles can provide capabilities not previously available with existing e-mail solutions especially with operational aspects of managing an e-mail infrastructure. Although total cost of ownership (TCO) is a leading driver for choosing SaaS e-mail, customers should approach SaaS e-mail options based on how the solution will improve the e-mail experience and increase user and operational productivity as well as mitigate risks.

Mobility in Domino article

Karen Hobert — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:36:33 +0000

Just published: Lotus makes mobile partnership and Notes Traveler top priorities

Another SearchDomino article by your narrator.

Gauging the Real Value of SaaS E-mail

Karen Hobert — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:07:06 +0000

I‘m pleased to announce the publication of “Gauging the Real Value of Software as a Service (SaaS) E-mail for Small and Medium Businesses,” a Collaborative Strategy Guild white paper on SaaS E-mail and productivity. You can download the paper here or go to our Research page.

The e-mail market is rapidly evolving as new business-grade software as a service (SaaS) e-mail options become a viable alternative to the traditional on-site e-mail by competing on price and value. Information Technology (IT) decision makers are pressured to reduce costs, so they’re considering a move to SaaS e-mail solutions, which is driving businesses to scrutinize current e-mail strategies. Making a SaaS e-mail decision depends upon the unique needs of the business and how available options not only offer cost savings, but also productivity value.

In this paper, Collaborative Strategy Guild founding member, Karen Hobert, focuses on the SaaS e-mail market, its impact on small and medium businesses (SMBs), and how to find the real value in different product offerings.

Google Beachhead

Karen Hobert — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:05:10 +0000

Google continues to bolster its beachhead on the enterprise email market. Today it announced it is providing free of charge to Google Apps Premier and Education customers a “plug-in” that will migrate Notes mail and personal directory information to Google Apps.

The new tool lets customers migrate mail, calendar and contacts from Notes to Google Apps. The syncing tool, which Google says is a native Notes application, can be installed and configured in less than 30 minutes, for multiple users at once. The tool has already been tested with 40 of Google’s enterprise clients, including JohnsonDiversey (10K users) and Valeo (32K users). The tool is free for Google Apps Premier and Educustomers.

The aggressive ramp up to enterprise-grade solutions hasn’t always been as successful as Google has hoped. Changing the mind-set of enterprise IT decision makers who tend to follow established software delivery methods and practices is still a hard practice. In recent weeks Google has capitulated to some of these customer attitudes such as removing the “beta” label from the Google Apps tools. The more clumsy release of the Google Apps Sync for Microsoft Outlook connector has been met with criticism for not offering pair-wise functionality with Outlook and disabling Microsoft Desktop Search, the search mechanism for Outlook. AJuly 10, 2009 PC World (IDG News Service) article puts it this way:

So Google embarked — probably grudgingly — down the path that other e-mail vendors have traveled with little success: trying to replicate the Outlook-Exchange experience with their back-end e-mail server and Outlook. Here was Google apparently getting dragged into the Microsoft way of doing things, creating — gasp! — a piece of PC software: an Outlook plug-in. The problems and complaints started immediately.

Right away, industry analysts cautioned CIOs and IT managers to examine the Google tool closely, warning them that it couldn’t fully replicate in Gmail thefunctionality of the Outlook-Exchange combination, lacking basic features like the ability to synchronize Outlook notes and tasks, for example.

A tough market indeed. Clearly Google wants it enough to put so much effort into lowering the barriers to enterprise interest. In its campaign to grease the migration skids and polish the consumer-come-enterprise perception Google is waging a fierce battle that will require formidable reinforcements to back up.

What’s in a Word?

Karen Hobert — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:29:49 +0000

Google has lifted the “beta” label from Gmail and other Google Apps, Google Calendar, Google Docs and Google Talk. Google makes it clear in its Official Google Blog announcement that they are making the move because enterprises are having a hard time getting around the “traditional definition” of the “beta” software label.

We’re often asked why so many Google applications seem to be perpetually in beta. For example, Gmail has worn the beta tag more than five years. We realize this situation puzzles some people,particularly those who subscribe to the traditional definition of “beta” software as not being yet ready for prime time.

I’m not sure Google ever did a good enough job of telling us what the non-traditional definition of beta is. Apparently it wasn’t all that hard to remove but I’m wondering why with so much press-bashing on the label it took Google so long to draw the line and say things are done. Google isn’t being as transparent on how it determined that the code is final, for now.

Of course this brings up the argument that I think Google has been trying to convince us of all along. That traditional software development cycles are impossible to keep with such rapid evolution of code and to draw a line in the sand would be ironic if they kept releasing new features on an ongoing basis. If that’s the case then “beta” should never have ended up in the logo to begin with. One of the benefits of a leased SaaS software delivery model is that the customer has the power to stay or go with little penalty. The onus is on the provider to continue to innovate to add more value for the customer at the same price. Google has embraced this concept by continually reminding its customers it can, and should, apply patches, changes, and upgrades whenever it feels the need. It’s “beta” cause the work is never done. Still convincing a market that is accustomed to “beta” meaning “test code” was harder than expected.

Oh, BTW, if you’re not comfortable without the “beta” (depending on how you define “beta”) you can put it back on the logo via the Gmail Labs settings:

Softening the Social Bite

Karen Hobert — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:11:10 +0000

Remember when email flaming was all the ..er..rage? It took a while for people to learn to turn off the caps lock. Surely there is a learning curve with social sites. In the meantime the stakes are pretty high, like losing your job.

The minidrama is an increasingly familiar one as companies and workers navigate the landscape defined by sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. Firings and reprimands over postings to social networking sites have become commonplace over the last year.

Surely, as individuals, we’ll eventually learn to balance who we “let in” to our social networks, how we reveal our thoughts, and consider who might see what we say or do. I wonder how tolerance levels for “past deeds” will play out in the future. I think we’ll become more tolerant when just about everyone has had the experience of putting too much out there. It’s like traffic in LA (I get to say this cause I’m from LA); the best excuse when you’re late for a meeting is to blame it on traffic, everyone commiserates with you especially if there was an accident on the freeway. For an interesting read on putting stuff out there take a look at this New York Times article from 2007 (funny how this article keeps coming up).

But the answer does not solely lie with the end user. Companies need to frequently communicate with their employees on what they will tolerate and not just rely on draconian measures after the fact. What’s the phrase, “an ounce of prevention…”? Most companies have some sort of policy on cyber-flaming; although it’s probably obtusely named something like Electronic Communications Agreement that employees my need to sign (but not re-read) once a year. Usually the agreement includes broadly written rules that only do well to serve as blunt instruments when it’s needed or is useful. Typically signing the agreement is made part of employment terms but the rules are dictated rather than communicated. When was the last time you read the entire licensing agreement when you installed a piece of software? And do you think of it every time you use the software? Same idea. If a company wants to avoid embarrassment and leaked information then it should take measures to help employees understand what is tolerated and help them to do the right thing.

AP Reporter Reprimanded For Facebook Post; Union Protests | Threat Level | Wired.com

Cloud Computing Security Services Add-Ons

Diana Kelley — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:36:19 +0000

Char Sample and I did a techtip for cloud VARs on compliance and security services. We focused on that customers might be interested in paying more for in order to insure their data is secured and protected in the cloud. Of course, in order for these services to be worth offering, customers will have to be willing to pay extra for them. Which raises the traditional Catch-22 dilemma – if you can’t trust a provider (insert any trusted provider here: doctor’s office, local policy and safety offices, financial institutions) to protect your critical information without having to pay them extra – should you be trusting them in the first place?

The late comedian George Carlin had a famous routine about “stuff,” and how many of us have so much important stuff that we need to rent rooms in storage facilities to protect the stuff. Storage facilities offer security protections that an average home might not have; strong alarm systems, climate controlled environments, and advanced fire suppression. For your customers, moving data and services “stuff,” including personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI), to a cloud computing model is a bit like putting our important things in a high-end storage facility.

Cloud computing issues and risks

Cloud computing brings considerable business benefit. Costs can be reduced when ongoing administrative tasks and management of software and hardware are transferred off-site. To augment the cost savings and attract customers, VARs can offer cloud computing security services by providing additional security protection, customization overlays and risk mitigation to the cloud offering. For example, VARs can offer to transfer some of the customer risk, in the form of insurance coverage and remuneration for loss, should customer data go missing or services go offline due to cloud provider error.

If you’d like to read the rest of the tip please navigate over to: TechTarget.