collaborative technology in the enterprise

8/4/2019 Collaborative Technology in the Enterprise

1/72

2006 Collaborative Strategies. All rights reserved.

The Future Of Collaboration

Ann Marcus and

David Coleman,

Collaborative Strategies

CTS 2006 Tutorial:May 14th, 2006


2/72


Section 1: Definitions and

Evolution


3/72


Definitions of ElectronicCollaboration

Intentional group processes plus software to supportthem. Peter & Trudy Johnson-Lenz, 1978

A co-evolving human tool system. Doug Engelbart,1988

Computer-mediated interactions that increase theproductivity or functionality of person-to-personprocesses. David Coleman, 1992

E-Collaboration occurs anytime you have 2 ormore people sharing complex information viathe computer on an ongoing basis for aspecific purpose or goal.


4/72


Critical Definitions

Communication: a message is sent fromperson A to person B, and receipt isacknowledged by person B

Interaction: a message is sent from personA to person B, and receipt is acknowledgedby person B, and person B sends a messageback to person A in reply.

Collaboration- multiple interactionsbetween two or more people for somecommon goal


5/72


Critical Definitions -2

Synchronous Collaboration- the interaction occursvia computer within 5 seconds (e.g., IM/chat)

Asynchronous Collaboration - no time limit on thecomputer-mediated interaction (e.g., BBS, threaded

discussions, e-mail) SemiSynchronous a non-permanent but persistent

version of a synchronous interaction.

Vertical vs. Horizontal Markets/ Solutions

Vertical: An Industry: Hight Tech, Pharma, Banking, Education,Govt., etc.

Horizontal: Marketing/Sales, Operations, Financial, etc.


6/72


Collaborative Data Model

All collaborative interactions have toincorporate one or more of these four datatypes:

Structured Data (database)

Unstructured Data (e-mail, documents, etc.)

Conversations (IM, threaded discussions, etc.) Tasks (actions in a project)


7/72


The Evolution of Interaction

Person to Data/Content

People interact through

Data/Content

Data/Content

People interact with

People

around/aboutData/ContentData/Content

Data/Content


8/72


Section 2: Survey Results


9/72


CS Survey (#1)

Survey sent out to 4000 people, January 2005; 100+responses (2.5%)

Market Demographics:

43% Small orgs (1-100 people)

20% Medium orgs (100 1000 people)

37% Large orgs (1,000 -10,000 +people)

Industries: Manufacturing, Consulting, Computer

(HW/SW) Financial Services, Health care, Govt.Education.


10/72


Results of CS Survey (#1)

Over 50% respondents are Officer/Executives

Over 62% work on a team over 50% time

Over 67% influence or make final purchasingdecision

72% are not sure how to apply collaborationtechnologies

65% have fear of using collaborationtechnologies

Demographics: 50% respondents in U.S.; other 50%all over world


11/72


Results: Collaborative Area of Interest

Best Practices 65%

Cultural/behavioral issues62%

Case Studies 54%

Virtual workspaces 53%

Online Community tools 51%

Social networking tools 46%

DPM tools 37%

Blogs/Wikis 31%

Expertise discovery 25%

Data conferencing 25%

IM/Chat 23%

Video conf 18%

Audio conf 15%


12/72


CS Survey Results

How do you learn about collaborative tools? Online resources 54%

Peer recommendations 42%

Given to us by IT 36% Team member recommendation 27%

Industry conferences 20%

Team consensus evaluation 19%

Sequential team evaluation 13%


13/72


Testing CT Theories

The research involved testing several theories aboutcollaboration technologies: Most people only see the value of collaboration technologies

in tangible results from collaboration.

Collaborative value is emergent, and can occur in anunplanned manner.

Populations with different levels of experience withcollaboration technologies have different beliefs in the valueand benefits that can be achieved.

IT professionals have different beliefs about the benefits andvalue of collaboration technologies than non-IT workers.

The time-to-value for collaboration technologies should bemeasured in years, rather than months.


14/72


Perception of Value for CT 800 online surveys

Almost 40 phone interviews

All sub-populations found CT both valuable andbelievable

IT professionals

No experience, some experience, regular experience

Small, medium, and large organizations Industry type (manufacturing, services, government, education)

Role in organization (Sr. Mgt., Mgr/Dir, Team Member)

Results of Survey (#2)


15/72


Research on Value of CT

CS completed a research study on how people perceive thevalue of collaboration technologies in Q1 of 2005.

The results of the survey demonstrate the value of the benefitsof collaboration technologies were perceived as highly importantacross a variety of different populations.

Not only were the benefits seen as important, but thebelievability the technology would be able to help deliver thebenefits was also rated quite high.

In measuring time-to-value the survey showed that 45% ofthose implementing a collaborative technology received value

from collaboration within three months, and 69% in less than ayear.


16/72


Time to Value for CT


17/72


Research Outcomes

In the buying process, almost equal weight was givento intangible benefits vs. tangible. Survey respondents cited both planned and emergent

value (happy accidents) as being importantoutcomes.

Many of the research respondents did not start outwith a clear method for measuring ROI forcollaboration technologies.

Yet, most of the survey respondents and all of the

people interviewed found clear and importantbenefits and value from implementing collaborationtechnologies in their organizations. Cite Genderdifferences Study by


18/72


All CT Benefits Reduced to Four

Saving Time or Money (tangible)

Increasing Quality (tangiblebut less so)

Innovation and/or decision support (tangiblebut less than quality)

Interactions with or access to experts orothers (intangible)


19/72


Drivers for Purchasing CT

Remote patient diagnosis between doctors.Expert advice fortimely decisions.

Distributed sales team working on proposals orprojects together.

Meeting tightdeadlines.

Support Dept. lowers costs with faster exceptionhandling/ KM / Outreach into cloud

Improve customerservice.

Conduct focus groups w ith customers. Develop new products among distributed R&D

teams.

Reduce time tomarket

Meet and interact with ex ternal parties such ascustomers, suppliers, government agencies, etc.around documents, presentations, anddemonstrations.

Interview job candidates on a remote basis. Deliver distance learning/ training to remote

employees.

Limited travel budget

Business Process ExamplesDriver


20/72


Verticals AdoptingCollaborative Technologies Today

High Tech

Financial Services

Telecommunications

Pharmaceutical/Health Care

Academic Institutions

Government

(some) Manufacturing


21/72


Section 3. VTS


22/72


VTS - Definition

A secure and persistent virtual environment thatallows team members with various roles tointeract with each other around team or project

content and process.


23/72


What is a VTS?

Virtual Team Spaces are: Asynchronous

Based on groupware technologies

Provide a secure space where geographicallydistributed teams can work together

Often offer some document management features

Usually connect to e-mail and other ERP apps.

Evolving into On-Demand Collaboration tools (withthe addition of RTC features)


24/72


Evolution of VTS Tools

Structured

asynchronous

communication

s: Threaded

discussions,

shared

calendars.

Enables group

communication

& coordination

but may not

target critical

processes.

De-Facto standard

for team

communication.

Sequential process

does not support

team work well.

Sequential info

flow; editing, &

changes difficult

to track / share;

each copy

degraded; color

not available.

No visual element or

ability to included

documents. Fax

becomes adjunct

functionality.

Specific end

poring, poor

security, cant

broadcast,

limited

alphanumeric

messaging.

Shared anytime

access to secure

Documents,

management

Shared access

to a secure

master

document.

Interactions

measured in

hours or

minutes.

Fastest delivery of

written

communication &

digital files across

large distances in

hours or minutes.

Phone and

scanning

technology for

faster delivery of

written

communication

over distance

Immediate delivery of

audio communication

across large distances

instantly.

Standardized &

secure service

for written

communication

over distance for

coordination.

Many-to-many

communication

for virtualteams.

Many-to-many

communication

for virtualteams.

1-to-1, 1-to-many

(broadcast e-mail)

1-to-1, 1-to-many

(broadcast fax)

1-to-1, party lines,

conference calls

1-to-1

Communication

2000s1990s1980s1970s1800s1800s

Web-based

VTS tools

Virtual Team

& Workplace

Software Tools

E-mailFaxTelephoneTelegraph


25/72


Various Forms of VTS Tools

Project Team Collaboration (PTC) tools (eRoom & PlanView)

Intranets/Extranets (Intranets.com now WebEx Office)

Groupware (IBM/Lotus Notes)

Content/Document Management (Vignette Collaboration)

Knowledge Management (Knexa)

Chat and discussion boards (WebBoard

Online community (Yahoo groups)

E-collaboration tools (e-Room, Groove)

Portals (Plumtree (now BEA)

DPM (distributed project management) tools

Wikis (GroveSite, JotSpot, SocialText)


26/72


Technology

+ Culture

+ Economics+ Politics

ElectronicCollaboration

Success

Formula forElectronic Collaboration Success


27/72


Technology EconomicsCulture Politics

Score = Score = Score = Score =

Weight = 1 Weight = 2 Weight = 3 Weight = 4

Subtotal =Score X Weight




+ =++

Total

Assessing Your CompanysCollaborative Potential


28/72


Barriers to VTS

Conflicts: Relationship, Process, Task or Cognitive Cultural/language differences & fears Lack of trust (team mates, leaders, systems) Comfort/familiarity with existing tools; perceived

steep learning curve of new tool Inadequate team leadership support to encourage

full participation, communication Reward & recognition structure still based on

widget- vs. knowledge-centric model (MS & Unisys) Multiple tools in use; no clear commitment to one

tool Insufficient IT support


29/72


Barriers 2 Weakness in ToolsIBM ActivitySpaces Project Not contextual. External to the user's main daily work environment

(whether an email client, integrated development environment, orsome other software) and lack links to the work context and artifacts. Not easy to find relevant information. Large collection of artifacts

and discussionsnot significant to all, information overload. Not easy to monitor changes. Little or no external indication of

changes or activities that have occurred within the spaces since lastvisit. May fail to command attention and may fall into disuse

Not easy to collaborate across teams. Security is necessary, butcan create silos; all-or-nothing nature of membership can beproblematic. Selective sharing can produce more silos (via email, RSSfeeds, different VTS, e.g., Intel, SharePoint, Collabnet).

IBM Research Collaborative User Experience Group, S. Ross, Cambridge, MA 2006


30/72


Section 4. VTS: Evolving toOn-Demand Collaboration

Trends and Directions


31/72


Infrastructure and applications that allowpeople to move fluidly between

synchronous and asynchronous interactionswith anyone, at anytime, on any device.

On-Demand Collaboration


32/72


Evolution ToOn-Demand Collaboration

2005 Collaborat ive Strate gies. All righ ts reserved .

Anytime/Anyplace Collaboration

Sourc e: Rob ert Joha nsen et al, Lea ding Business Tea ms, Boston: Ad dison-Wesley, 1991

SameTi

me

Diff

erent

Plac

e Diff

erentT

ime

Diff

eren

tPla

ce

Diff

erent

Time

Sam

e

Place

Any TimeAny Place

SameTi

me

SamePla

ce


33/72


1. Convergence of audio/video/data conferencing

2. Presence (and status) everywhere!

3. Merging of synchronous & asynchronous collaboration

4. Enterprise collaboration convergence (and standardization)

5. Push to the infrastructure (for collaborative functions)6. RTC market consolidation

7. Driving collaboration into industries and processes

8. Changing distribution channels

9. Changing buyers for collaboration solutions10. Mobile collaboration (PDA/cell phone as a platform for

collaboration)

10 Critical Trends DrivingOn Demand Collaboration


34/72


1: Convergence of Audio,Video, and Data

Microsoft addition of Arel Anywhere

WebEx adds voice and video

Oracle adding voice and video

Skype adding video

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera


35/72


2: Presence Everywhere!

Presence is not something you can do with thephoneit is a unique feature

Status shows not only that you are there, butsometimes what state you are in, i.e., on the phone,

in a meeting, etc. Presence/status needs to extend to all devices and

be seamless

Microsoft sees presence as a core feature and willpush it down into the OS (Windows Vista)


36/72


3: Synchronous andAsynchronous Merging

WebEx acquires Intranets.com

Microsoft Office 12

Oracle adds Virtual Team Rooms

IBM/Lotus SameTime and Notes 7

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera


37/72


Larger organizations may have several collaborativeapplications in various groups

IT does not want the expense of running many

different applications Consolidation of collaborative applications can be

mandated by IT (not best option)

Stakeholder committee can work out a solution(better option)

4: Enterprise Consolidation ofCollaboration Technologies


38/72


RTC: Web/ Aud io/Video Conferencing

andVirtual Classroom

CollaborativeCRM

Portals andOnline Comm unities

Tac it KM andIntellectual Capital

CollaborativeContent

ManagementLMS, LCMS

DistributedProject

ManagementVirtual Workplace

And Process

Collab orative Infrastruc ture: Persistenc e, Presence, Messaging, Data Routing , Sec urity

5: Pushing Collaboration intothe Infrastructure


39/72


6: Market Consolidation

Microsoft buys Groove Networks, PlaceWare, and Teleo WebEx buys Intranets.com eBay buys Skype, PayPal, and invests in Craigslist Yahoo buys eGroups Oracle buys PeopleSoft and Siebel Systems

BEA buys Plumtree Google buys: Deja, Outride, Pyra, Applied Semantics, Kaltix,

Sprinks, Ignite Logic, Neotonic, Picasa, and Keyhole Expansion in the collaboration space with new products

coming to market daily: Verosee, Writely (oops bought by

Google), Convenos, Backpack, Jeteye Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera


40/72


1. Sales & Marketing (proposal development)

2. Customer Service/Support (exception handling)

3. R&D (new product development)

4. Value Network Management (relationships withexternal organizations, DPM, and projectmanagement) (exception handling)

5. Training (internal and external)6. Decision support/crisis management

7: Driving Collaboration intoVerticals and Critical Processes


41/72


Financial Services

Healthcare/Pharmaceutical

Government

High Tech

Manufacturing

Education

Professional Services

TelecomBased on research done in Q2, 2005 for CS RTC report

Top Verticals for Collaboration


42/72


8: Changing Distribution Channels

The collaboration market is maturing

22% more revenues are going through the channelsthen in 2003

Changing channels for telecom: RTC vendors selling

audio conferencing and VoIP (i.e., Skype), phone andcomputer merging

Google becoming a communications giant?

Collaboration being commoditized, greater margins inverticals and processes


43/72


9: Changing Buyers of Collaboration

2006

Chasm


44/72


Todays Buyers ofCollaboration Technologies

Risk averse - want to know it works for others intheir organization or field

Technology neutral

Looking for a specific solution Must fit with their current infrastructure

Desire little or no training

Haves an intuitive ROI


45/72


10: Mobile Collaboration

HTC Universal/i-Mate Jasjar/O2XdaExec/T-MobileMDAPro/GrundigGR980/Orange

SPV5000


46/72


Section 5: Case Study


47/72


Case Study: Congo Dam Project

How To Manage Information in a

Complex, Multi-Cultural Project Community


48/72


The Congo Dam Project

VTS-based project Scenario

Geographically-distributed team,

Long-term (three-year) project,

Big, expensive project (a dam),

Strict penalties for lateness, bonuses for earlycompletion

A cross-cultural team

Uses VTS to help will documentation andcoordination of the project


49/72


Team brought together virtually for project bid.

There is a team manager in the U.S.

Project people currently building a dam in Poland

Local people in Zaire

The team is bidding against Bechtel, ABB, andothers.

The team manager requests team memberparticipation by e-mail. All members respond

affirmatively.

The Congo Dam Project (2)


50/72



Members are sent a password and URL by e-mail (digital signature required) and asked tolog on to the site (VTS) and participate in

creating the proposal document. The RFP is on the password-protected website

with comments from each of the experts andteam members involved.


51/72



The team leader does a distance presentation at aspecific time to bring everyone up to speed.

For those that are not able to attend the meetingthe leader posts the slides with the RFP in a VTS

Ongoing discussion (tacit to explicit knowledge)continues for a few days and then leader assignseach sections of the proposal to different teammembers.

This necessitates finding and/or calling some ofthe people involved in the project and holds upthe proposal.


52/72



The team proposal wins! Discussion of the project continues on the VTS

The leader makes part of the VTS available on

the Web to include the client, suppliers andsubcontractors.

The project manager knows he must haveevents to drive project goals. These events are

real-time, distance meetings that occur at leastonce a month (On-demand Collaboration).


53/72



The team would need information from a variety of

resources inside and outside the company. Tools are not enough! The experienced project

manager knows that he has to create goodcommunications between the team, including trust,common goals, an agreed style, etc.

Face-to-face community meetings are necessary

Should occur every 3 months.

Motivate good team behavior, knowledge sharing,participation, etc.

Team compensation tied to milestones


54/72


The Congo Dam Project (7) The VTS (with continual input from the experts, the

on-site project team and the leader) lives for severalyears and provides continuous value.

Before the final bonus is paid, team members mustevaluate their experience on the team (which isposted on-line) and of the project (which goes to the

manager).

Bonus and completion awards are decided by theteam itself (polling in the VTS)

All the VTS project data is automatically indexed andarchived in case of litigation (required in the originalcontract) and to provide best practice help to othersworking on similar projects in the future.


55/72


Case Study: Target Purchasing


56/72


Seasonal Purchasing Problems

Purchasers at Target stores work with vendors allover the world.

They have time limits in which to purchase clothingfor a specific season spring, fall, etc.

E-mail did not allow the right level of interaction; RTCtools were not persistent enough.

Wiki-based VTS (GroveSite) was used without ITconsent.


57/72


Target Purchasing

GroveSite VTS was set up by the purchasing agentin 20 minutes.

She invited her vendors to be part of the team.

She was able to post drawings and requirements for

the next seasons fashions. She got much better response from the vendors.

Vendors felt they had much more input into the

process and were more of a partner with Target.


58/72


GroveSite Wiki-based VTS


59/72


Another GroveSite Example


60/72


Snapshot of VTS Tools TodayIntranet Dashboard (Intranet

Dashboard)JotSpot (Jot)

Livelink Virtualteams (Netage)

(Lipnack & Stamps)TeamWorkplace / QuickPlace

(IBM/Lotus)

SharePoint (Microsoft)

Near-Time (Near-Time)

NetOffice (NetOffice)

Notes/Domino (IBM/Lotus)

PogG (Microsoft)

QMind (QMind)

Same-Page eStudio (Same-Page)

Silk (Akiva)InfoStreet (InfoStreet)

iCohere (iCohere)

HotOffice (HotOffice)

GroveSite (GroveSite)

GroupWise (Novell)

Groove (Microsoft)

eRoom (EMC Documentum)

Constructware (Autodesk)

Collaboration Suite (Oracle)

Central Desktop (Central Desktop)

Caucus (Caucus)

Basecamp (Basecamp)

Summit Groupware 2006 (PowderSoftware)

SimDesk (SimDesk Technologies)

SiteScape (SiteScape)

SocialText (Wiki) (SocialText)

Synchris (Synchris)

TeamSpace (TeamSpace)

Verosee (Verosee) (w/Skype)

VIA3 (Viack)

Vignette Collaboration (Vignette)

WebBoard (Akiva)

Webex WebOffice (Webex)

WorkSmart (Pandora Networks)

Yahoo Groups (Yahoo) / GoogleGroups (Google), My Space, Tribe,Frienster.and other Social Networksites


61/72


Section 6: The Future of VTS


62/72


E-Workplace of Tomorrow

What will change?

Technology

Physical work place

Society

Behavior

Organization

Balancing work and life


63/72


eWorkPlace of Tomorrow

Changes in Technology Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) tools lead the Web

2.0 revolution

Advances in personal identity and security systems

Group Intelligence Systems (social networks) Technologies that fail gracefully

Easier access to greater bandwidth at lower cost(cost of communication going to zero)

Todays online multi-player gaming technology willbe tomorrows leading edge business technology


64/72



Changes in Place

Work was your office (past)

Today work is your desk

Tomorrow work is YOU

Past- place as perk (corner office) Future- Place as work enabler (where you want to

work instead of have to work)

Sometimes virtual is preferential to physical

(SARS, Avian Flu, weather, traffic) Moving from working with things to ideas,

content and data (cheaper)


65/72



Societal Changes

Education: Comes to students, customized, supports skillsfor development and maintenance of physical and e-communities.

Communities: The rise of guilds (or online communities);defined by your communities (e-gangs, e-colors, e-behaviors)

Politics: Online voting (no hanging chads!); the emergenceof virtual committee! (Oh Mywhat could be uglier than acamel?)

Social Affiliations: Evolving social structures, notbounded by geography but rather by interest,connectedness (e.g., AARP-net), politics (Moveon.org), etc.


66/72



Behavioral Changes

Fewer laws, rules of engagement defined by the community(physical or virtual)

More Project-oriented work (see Tom Peters) (Business ofone)

Better feedback systems for greater self-consciousness

(videoconferencing) Stop separating experts from lay people Changes in attitude: increase our respect for each other,

organizations shift attitude from employer/employeementality to networked alliance partners; learn from working

together across cultures that we are not so different Ethnographic analysis of work becomes common (day in the

life)


67/72


eWorkPlace of Tomorrow Organizational Changes

Flexible workforce, project work, contractors for hire, low-friction talent marketplace

CEO takes responsibility for organizations intellectualcapital, and it is accounted for on the balance sheet

Change recognition and reward structures as well ascompensation packages to support new w ays of working

Less hierarchy, more trust enabled by better security (goodfences make good neighbors)

Changes in Role people can play multiple roles in anorganization


68/72



Balancing Work and Life Cant distinguish your work from your life (job title

is your identity)

Is your job a role? When are you out of it?

Technology to mitigate different cognitive styles:Multi-taskers vs. mono-focus; divergent or non-linear thinkers vs. linear thinkers (cognitivecomputing)

Forcing disconnectedness: No e-mail Fridays nomeetings on Fridays (HP), work at home on Friday(Yahoo)


69/72


First, Second, Third Order Effects

First Order (1995- 2000):

Publishing to the Web Second Order (2000-2005):

Using the Web to interact (development of social networks)

Third Order: (2005 . )

Consumer (mob or crowd) development of products and services Web 2.0, mashups, portals/portlets

Salesforce.coms AppExchange (60+ apps on any platform, e.g.,StrikeIron - live business demographics, data verification andcleansing capabilities )

Acceleration of open source applications, focus on self-service. Realization that the client knows their problem best.


70/72


Back to the Future (of Collaboration)Ubiquitous Scenario

Every electronic device is Internet capable/smart Inanimate objects are smart (nano and molecular

computingsmart roads, smart cups, smartypants!)

People and devices are all clamoring for attention

You can collaborate with anyone, anywhere, atanytime, and at almost any level of interaction

When is it time not to collaborate?


71/72


Future Scenario:Rise of Attention Management

(Continuous Partial Attention*) Soon network bandwidth will surpass human

bandwidth to process information

How will people deal with this and the demands ontheir attention?

When is MPD (multiple personality disorder) anadvantage?

Avatars and agents to augment our attention!*coined as a term by Linda Stone in her work at Microsoft

http://research.microsoft.com/workshops/SCS2005/speakers/Stone.aspx


72/72


For More InformationThe 2006 VTS Report Available in May

http://www.reports.collaborate.com

For more information about Collaborative Strategies:

(www.collaborate.com) (415) 282-9197

David Coleman Ann M. MarcusManaging Director Analyst

[email protected] [email protected]