Notes

cisedu.us
  • No tags were found...

Notes

CTS 04 Tutorial II: The CollaborationMarket & TechnologiesPresented byDavid ColemanManaging DirectorCollaborative Strategies©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Agenda• Section 6: Exercise – CollaborativeBenchmarking• Section 7: Best Practices: 15 Rules forCollaboration Success and10 Rules forOnline Community Success• Section 8: Questions To Ask Before StartingKnowledge Management or ElectronicCollaboration Projects©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Collaborative StrategiesBackground:• Established 1989, based in San Francisco.• Focus on industry analysis and consulting to both vendorsand end users of electronic collaboration and knowledgemanagement technologies.• Highly experienced staff (over 50 years)• Contact Information:– 415/282-9197– www.collaborate.com– davidc@collaborate.com©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Definitions of Electronic Collaboration• Intentional group processes plus software to support themPeter and Trudy Johnson-Lenz, 1978• A co-evolving human tool systemDoug Engelbart, 1988• Computer-mediated collaboration that increases theproductivity or functionality of person-to-person processesDavid Coleman, 1992• E-Collaboration occurs anytime two or more people sharecomplex information via the computer on an ongoingbasis for a specific purpose or goal.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Distinguishing Communication From CollaborationST-DPCommunication(mostly one-to-one andunstructured)DT-DPCollaboration(mostly manyto-manyandgoal-oriented) Collaboration CommunicationST-SPDT-SP©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Critical Definitions (2)• Synchronous Collaboration - Interaction occurswithin five seconds• Asynchronous Collaboration - No time limit on theinteraction• Semi-Synchronous Collaboration - More than fiveseconds but within some prescribed time frame©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Critical Definitions (3)• Data - Bits and bytes• Information - The ability of a human to take in data,put it into context, and give it meaning• Learning - The process of internalizing information,relating it to what we know, and “internalizing” orunderstanding it• Knowledge - The application of information, either asaction or communication©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Collaboration RequiresPeopleProcessCollaborationTechnology©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Collaboration Requires (2)ContextProcessCollaborationContent©2004 Collaborative Strategies


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©2004 Collaborative Strategies


In meetings (in person or remote) that you participate in,what % of the time are people Communicating0. 0%• 10%• 20%• 30%• 40%• 50%• 60%• 70%• 80%• 90%• 100%0%0%5%©2004 Collaborative Strategies10%9%10%10%12%16%14%14%


In meetings (in person or remote) that you facilitateor participate in, what % of the time are peopleInteracting0. 0%• 10%• 20%• 30%• 40%• 50%• 60%• 70%• 80%• 90%• 100%0%0%3%10%9%©2004 Collaborative Strategies11%14%14%14%13%13%


In meetings (in person or remote) that youparticipate in, what % of the time are peopleCollaborating0. 0%• 10%• 20%• 30%• 40%• 50%• 60%• 70%• 80%• 90%• 100%0%0%0%8%8%©2004 Collaborative Strategies10%13%15%15%15%15%


What % of the time do you collaborateasynchronously?0. 0%• 10%• 20%• 30%• 40%• 50%• 60%• 70%• 80%• 90%• 100%0%0%0%0%4%7%11%©2004 Collaborative Strategies(synch+asynch=100%)17%17%17%26%


What % of the time do you collaboratesynchronously?0. 0%• 10%• 20%• 30%• 40%• 50%• 60%• 70%• 80%• 90%• 100%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%©2004 Collaborative Strategies(synch+asynch=100%)21%21%21%36%


Section 2Taxonomies For Collaboration©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Collaborative Strategies Functional Taxonomy 2002-2004Typical Participant Group SizeRTC: Web /Audio / VideoConferencingAnd VirtualClassroomCollaborativeCRMUnified and WirelessMessagingDistributedProjectManagementVirtualWorkplace andProcessPortals and On-lineCommunitiesTacit KM andIntellectualCapitalCollaborativeContent Mgt.LMS, LCMSSynchronous Asynchronous© 2001, Collaborative Strategies. All rights reserved.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Which area of the collaborative taxonomy do youuse the most?1. RTC and Virtual Classroom11%2. Virtual team tools (DPM)3. Collaborative CRM4. Knowledge Management5%8%11%16%22%27%5. Collaborative content/document creation/mgt.6. Portals and On-line communities7. Unified Messaging and collaborative infrastructure©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Unified and Wireless MessagingMessaging infrastructures for collaboration include• Wireless Collaboration: Advanced Reality, OctaveImprov, TrueLook, Collego• E-mail-Based Services: Zaplet, MS Exchange• Peer-to-Peer: Groove, NextPage• IM/Chat: MSN, Yahoo, AIM, ICQ, Jabber• Directory Structures/Security: LDAP, Microsoft, Novell,Lotus©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Real Time Collaboration• Audio Conferencing: ACT, Polycom, Sprint• Data/Web Conferencing: WebEx, PlaceWare (nowMicrosoft), Raindance• Video Conferencing (desktop and room-based): Cisco,Genesys, Polycom, One Touch• Virtual Classroom: Centra, eRoom, SmartForce, Saba• Online Presentations (both interactive and streaming):one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many• Real time presentations, meeting facilitation tools©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Distributed Project Management,Virtual Workplace, and Process• Distributed Project Management (DPM): Artemis,eProject, OnProject, Primavera, Novient, Niku, etc.• Virtual Workplace: eRoom (Now EMC), Lotus/IBM,OpenText, Interwoven, Verity, etc.• Process/Workflow: Adobe (formerly Accelio), Vitria,Filenet, Staffware, GroupSystems, etc.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Portals and Online Communities• Collaborative Portals (information aggregation anddisplay) with functionality to interact with others aroundthe data• Online communities - mostly asynchronous, but cansupport synchronous (one-to-many) online “events”• Community - a place where if you are not there, you aremissed; more formal, more interaction• Network - a place where if you are not there, you are notmissed; less formal, less interaction• Sample Vendors: MS SharePoint, Plumtree, Mongoose©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Tacit Knowledge Management andIntellectual Capital• Storage indexing, valuation, and distribution of both tacitand explicit information: Tacit, ExpertCentral, InfoRocket• Intelligent search (context-based search) and taxonomyengines: Autonomy, Verity, TheBrain, etc.• Intellectual Capital valuation: HelloBrain, QPR• Data mining, competitive intelligence, businessintelligence: mySAP, Baan, WebFOCUS©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Collaborative CRM• “The application of customer service representatives (CSRs) orother human agents to e-commerce, specifically pertaining to thesales and customer support processes” Lewis Ward, CollaborativeStrategies Analyst, 2001• Use of real time collaboration technologies (IM/chat, collaborativeWeb browsing, call backs, VoIP, streaming and two-way video,and application viewing/sharing (FaceTime, CosmoCom,Interactive Intelligence, eShare, Brightware, eGain, ServiceWareTechnologies) to cut the cycle time in responding exceptionhandling• Siebel Systems, PeopleSoft, J.D.Edwards, and other CRM vendorsare just starting to incorporate collaborative functionality©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Portals and OnLineCommunities/Networks• Collaborative Portals (information aggregation anddisplay) with functionality to interact with others aroundthis data• Online communities - mostly asynchronous, but cansupport synchronous (one-to-many) online “events”• Community - a place where if you are not there, you aremissed; more formal, more interaction• Network - a place where if you are not there, you are notmissed; less formal, less interaction• MS SharePoint, Plumtree, Mongoose, etc.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Section 3Current Use: Who is using what and how?©2004 Collaborative Strategies


From a Recent ISDW Study1. 50% time working alone and 50% interacting with others(customers, suppliers, fellow employees, etc.).2. The two most common communication/collaborationtools are, telephone and e-mail. 35% get more than eightphone calls per day, while 93% get at least 20 e-mails inan average day (35% reported receiving more than 50 e-mails a day).3. IM not pervasive. 60% reported no use at all of IM.4. 43% had minimal experience with “Web broadcasts” (i.e.,tools like WebEx and PlaceWare).5. 57% have 1-5 direct contacts with others in a typical workday, while 21% have between 8-10 “F2Fs” a day.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Data From Pre-Conference SurveyWhat Tools Do You Use Today to Collaborate?1. e-Mail2. Audio conferencing3. Fax4. Cellular devices/phones5. Online calendar6. Paging7. Web conferencing8. Video conferencing©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Tools People Use for Virtual Work• Compare these results with audience results• From a 2002 PlaceWare (Microsoft) SurveyE-Mail = 95%Audio conferencing = 70%Fax = 55%Cellular devices/phones = 50%Online calendar = 35%Paging = 25%Web conferencing = 18%Video conferencing = 15%©2004 Collaborative Strategies


My Organization RegularlyCollaborates with…56% - Customers54% - Business partners54% - Regulatory authorities52% - SuppliersFrom InformationWeek Daily, July 31, 2002. Notethat multiple responses were allowed in thesurvey results©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Section 4Digging Deeper intoCollaborative Tools and Technologies©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Collaborative Tool Distinctions• Internally- or externally-hosted tools (ASP)• Single function tools or suites• Different levels of interactivity• Synchronous or asynchronous• Database-based or messaging-based• “Web native” or migrated from LAN©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Electronic Mail and MessagingMessaging Infrastructures, E-Mail SystemsSample Products: Notes Mail - IBM/Lotus Netscape Mail (AOL) Exchange - Microsoft Eudora - QualcommIssues: Standards: XAPI, MAPI, X.400, X.500, SMTP, NNTP, POP3,IMAP4 An asynchronous tool good for 1-1 or 1-many (broadcast) Not good for the transport of data (attachments) Security and who owns my e-mail? Etiquette and the efficient use of e-mail. Filters, agents and ability to deal with hundreds of messages aday.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


E-Mail Facts• Between 1991 and 1994, over 30 millionpeople got e-mail.• By 2002, the EMA expects over 1 billionpeople to have e-mail.• E-mail is excellent for one-to-one or one-tomany(spam) asynchronous collaboration orbroadcasting.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Increase in E-Mailbox NumbersMillions of Mailboxes100090080070060050040030020010001B (Estimated)569M333M311M236M194M117M15M1990 1998 1999 2002WorldwideU.S. OnlyOutside U.S.Data from Messaging Online’s1999 Mailbox StudyYear©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Group Calendaring and SchedulingGroup Calendars, Setting Meetingsand Meeting Resource CoordinationSample Products: Lotus Organizer - IBM/Lotus, Microsoft Outlook Meeting Maker - On TechnologiesIssues: Proliferation of meetings because they are now easier toschedule. Privacy of personal calendars (Big Brother is watching!). Having enough users in the company to make itworthwhile. Scheduling across enterprises and PIMs Web-based scheduling using CGI, JAVA, or ActiveX.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


E-Mail and Voicemail Are theDominant Ways to SchedulePhoneE-mailOutlookNotesMeeting MakerOn-Time0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%©2004 Collaborative StrategiesSource: NFO survey of Internet users, April 1999; n=219 (Those who schedule meetings)


PIM LandscapeWeb OfficeHot OfficeYahoo ClubsAnexaExcite Comm.Joint PlanningECircles.comCommunityMagical DeskWeb PIMsCalendarZVistoHotDiaryUniPlanet ScheduleOnline.comYahoo Calendar EasyDiary.comLycos MyTime DataFerretRemind-u-mailEorganizer.comSmartCalendar?Daily DrillJump.comDaytimer Digital Appoint.NetTimeDanceWeb Group SchedulersWeb EventFeedWhen.comAnyday.comNYTodayMusiCal.com©2004 Collaborative StrategiesNon-Web GroupSchedulersMeetingMakerMicrosoft ExchangeOutlook


Electronic Meeting Systems (EMS)Real Time Collaborative Presentationsand Decision Support SystemsSample Products: GroupSystems - Ventana facilitate.com - Facilitate.com MeetingWorks - Enterprise SolutionsIssues: Integration of systems with calendaring/scheduling systems. Can you put meeting resolutions into Notes or other products, andtrack goals and commitments? What is the role of a facilitator? When does facilitation add value? Will companies adopt EMS like e-mail is used today? How can people be encouraged to participate in real timecollaboration? Anonymous voting yields more ideas and "truth" than traditional©2004 Collaborative Strategiesmeetings.


Electronic MeetingwareTools and Services• Idea Generation• Idea Categorization• Portray Hierarchical Relationships• Collect Comments By Topic• Group Whiteboard• Anonymous Voting and Polling• Anytime/Anyplace Interaction©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Electronic Meetingware AdvantagesMore ideas in less time . . .• parallel processing -- everyone “talks at once”through the network• on-line documentation and “data handling”capabilities speed the processWith greater consensus . . .• anonymous input -- ideas are judged on merits, notrank of originator• voting builds buy-in, silences bullies©2004 Collaborative Strategies


More GDSS and EMS Tools• Ventana now GroupSystems has adopted an ASPmodel at:http://www.groupsystems.com/services_online.html• www.ideafocus.com- new tools that combineprocess and facilitation tools in a real timeinteraction• http://www.expertchoice.com/software/prodmtrx.htm• http://www.aliah.com/site/ps-at_spt-main.html• http://www.conceptsystems.com/software/decisionmaking.htm©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Real Time ConferencingUsers simultaneously view and edit documentson each others' screen or on a whiteboardSample Products: PictureTel PCS 200+ PictureTalk - PictureTalk NetMeeting 3.0 - Microsoft Webex (online service)Issues: Who controls the cursor on the screen? How many people can conference efficiently in one meeting? When will a facilitator add value? What are the interaction/baud rates? Is equipment compatible? Is DVC affordable? When will multipoint conferencing beavailable? What technologies and standards are holding the industry back?©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Virtual Team ChallengesCourtesy of iManage/Interwoven©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Benefits of RTC Technology• A reduction inunnecessary travel• Improved teamcommunication• Reduced time tomarket• Improved partnerrelationships• Improved customersupport• Better and fasterdecision making• Reinforce and enablevirtual teamcapabilities, practicesand culture©2004 Collaborative Strategies


ROI of Real Time MeetingsThe Bottom Line to Meeting OnlineCourtesy of VIACK©2004 Collaborative Strategies


RTC Definitions• RTC is composed of audio, video and dataconferencing.• Audio conferencing is the sharing of voice on acommon telephone call.• Video conferencing is the sharing of digital videoimages, almost always accompanied by voice.• Data conferencing is the sharing of multiple datatypes (text, graphics, pictures, etc.) in real timethrough collaborative software.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Real Time Conferencing: Costs and InteractivityThe Five Levels of Real Time ConferencingFully Interactive Streaming Audio and Video ConferencingAudio & Video Multi Point with Full Group Document EditingGroup Interactive Document EditingData Conferencing/Shared WhiteboardLive ChatIncreasing Levels of Value,Interactivity and Cost©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Projected Growth of Audio ConferencingPSTN Audio Conferencing Revenues2006 Revenues: $5.05B6,0005,0004,0004,5782,0002254672002 2006BridgesConf. Services3,0002,0001,0000$MSources: TIA/MMTA, Genesys, Raindance Communications and Latitude.© 2003, Collaborative Strategies. All rights reserved.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


The Future of Video ConferencingVideo Conferencing Revenues2006 Revenues: $2.1B5501008005007504002002 2006Services Endpoints (group & desktop) SoftwareSources: In-Stat/MDR, Wainhouse Research and FVC (as well as CS).© 2003, Collaborative Strategies. All rights reserved.2,5002,0001,5001,0005000$M©2004 Collaborative Strategies


The Growth of Web ConferencingWorldwide Data/Web Conferencing Software and ServiceRevenues, 2002-2006US dollars, in millions2,500Total Revenues, 2006: $2.04 Billion2,0001,5001,0002,0401,407500531 66997002002 2003 2004 2005 20065-year CAGR: 40%© 2003, Collaborative Strategies. All rights reserved.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


RTC Revenue GrowthTotal 2006 RTC Market Value: $9.19B22%$2.1B$2.04B$5.05B55%23%Audio (service revenues & bridges)Video (endpoints, software & services)Data/Web (direct vendor revenues)© 2003, Collaborative Strategies. All rights reserved.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


RTC Report 20031. e-Meetings support small rich, intense, and ad-hoc (or scheduled)interactions. These events typically range from 2-20 participants(the focus of Volume 1).2. Virtual Classroom e-learning and e-training tend to beclassroom-sized groups led by from one to three designatedinstructors/subject matter experts (SMEs). Such events generallyinclude limited interaction between participants and range from 20-100 individuals (the focus of Volume 2).3. Large events and e-Presentations, or “Webinars,” tend to have aclear leader/moderator and support very limited interaction (if at all,and often only back to this leader or his/her “behind the scenes”assistants). These events are designed for a large numbers (100-1000+) of participants (the focus of Volume 3).©2004 Collaborative Strategies


“The media IS the Message”Richness Versus Reach1,000+E-PresentationsReach10050Virtual Classroom10E-MeetingsRichness© 2003, Collaborative Strategies. All rights reserved.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


E-Learning (Sample - HorizonLive)©2004 Collaborative Strategies


E-Presentations Characteristics• 100+ participants• Have a single leader delivering information to an audience.• Video capabilities are centered on showing the presenter/leader and no oneelse.• Associated data also tends to be much more one-way than two-way.• Be planned and highly structured• Any testing and assessment (comprehension of the content delivered) isusually left up to the customer or not done at all.• The pre- and post-event logistics around these events can be highly complexand require significant planning and staff to organize, manage, deliver, archiveand analyze• Generally do not support continuous presence detection or a list of attendeesthat is available to all participants during the event• Support limited persistence of data created in a conference session.• Record and playback, a repository and reporting are often included©2004 Collaborative Strategies


E-Meetings, eTraining, ePresentationsWC Tool Usage by FunctionHow Companies Use WC Tools29% 29%W eb meetings (2-20people)W eb training classes(10-80 people)42%W eb presentations/seminars (30-500people)Note: Includes both internal and external collaboration.© 2003, Collaborative Strategies. All rights reserved.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


RTC Vertical Market FocusVertical Market Focus8%8%8%5% 5% 1% High Technology19%18%GovernmentFinancial ServicesHealthcare & Pharma.Professional ServicesTelecommunicationsEducationManufacturing13%© 2003, Collaborative Strategies. All rights reserved.15%RetailAECN = 79©2004 Collaborative Strategies


RTC Focus In The EnterpriseHorizontal Department/Process Focus6%Training16%36%MarketingSales19%HR/Operations23%ITN = 31© 2003, Collaborative Strategies. All rights reserved.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Non-Real Time ConferencingAsynchronous conferencing, like a bulletin board,where a conversation takes place over time.Sample Products: Caucus Public Folders (Exchange)Internet Office Hot OfficeIssues: How many people can conference efficiently? Is a facilitator needed for remote electronic conferences? How do you get the most out of such conference/discussion databases? Replication schemes, network topologies, scalability, transaction-based vs.store/forward databases, support for worldwide locations, integration with legacysystems. Do they integrate with scheduling systems? Can you put the resolutions into Notes or other products, and track goals andcommitments?©2004 Collaborative Strategies How does this integrate with project management?


Group Document HandlingGroup Editing, Shared-Screen Editing,Group Document/Image Managementand Document DatabasesSample Products: MarkUp - Mainstay Software Microsoft Word/Exchange Documentum - Documentum, Inc. (now EMC)Issues: How do standards, such as SGML, HTML and CALs, affect documentsecurity? How do they integrate with enterprise document/image databases? Where does group document management stop and multimedia begin? What about group access, versioning, data integrity, compression, integrationwith standard desktop word processing and group editing?©2004 Collaborative Strategies


WorkflowWorkflow Process Diagrammingand Analysis Tools, Enactment Engines,and Electronic Forms RoutingSample Products: Edge software – WorkDraw ATI – Metro Filenet Jetform/AdobeIssues: Workflow Coalition: Standards will make passing documents andinformation between products easier. Integration with EDI and other customer services. How do you identify the appropriate workflow product? Where doesworkflow stop and group document/image management begin? Does the application support JAVA applets, ActiveX or components? Will it interact with other web-based ©2004 Collaborative products, Strategies and how?


Web-Based Workflow• Three types of workflow products– LAN-based (over 140 products)– Hybrid (work on LAN and Web like NEC STARenterprise workflow, ATI Metro– Web Native - Webflow (now called AccentuateSystems)http://www.accentuate.com/products/WALKTHRUsp.html• Workflow is focused on process• Workflow vendor resource:http://www.waria.com/wfvendors• Three different process diagrams follow©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Three Classes of Workflow Products• Enterprise-Oriented -http://www.filenet.com/Products/prdmatrix.asp• Web-Native - JetFormhttp://www.jetform.com/products/outlook.html• Hybrid – ATI Metro,http://www.actionworksmetro.com/Metro/Product/overview.cfm?area=metro• What is Microsoft doing?– The Grizzly project– Move rudimentary workflow into Office 2000 workingwith Exchange Server, Service Pack 2, and threeupdates©2004 Collaborative Strategies


JetForm/ Acellio/Adobe• Uses browser-based forms and templates• Use of JAVA can make workflows moredynamic• Form or template can be used to monitor ormanage a predetermined process• Forms and templates can be easily changed,and digital signatures or certificates caninsure the signer’s identity and security©2004 Collaborative Strategies


ActionWorkflowVendor:Action TechnologiesCategory: WorkflowFunctionality:Task routing for processesTask tracking & reportingElectronic forms design & routing©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Project ProcessOverall Architecture for Knowledge Flow in a Collaborative ProjectProject ManagerStarts ProjectGroup Calendaring/Scheduling SystemsProject InitiationMeetingPeopleElectronicMeeting SystemsExport toContinuedDiscussionsNotes or CollabraDiscussionsDatabasesDecisionsDecisionsTasksGroup ProjectManagement SystemsTasksCommitmentsProject Simulationand ResourceTasksArchiving forCorporate MemoryWorkflow SystemsProject Completion©2004 Collaborative Strategies


ContractAdmin ContractAdminFinancialFinancial DataDataSales RepsSales RepsPersonnellDatabase PersonnellDatabaseIdentify PotentialIdentify Provider PotentialProviderData CollectionData CollectionProvider CrisisProvider eRoom: CrisisDocuments eRoom:Discussions DocumentsTask Discussions ListsProcess Task ListsTemplates ProcessTemplatesCreate ProcessCreate Template ProcessTemplateJetFormJetFormAddStakeholders AddStakeholdersElect ProcessElect Leader ProcessLeaderRumorsRumorsPatientsPatientsIdentifyAdditional IdentifyStakeholders AdditionalStakeholdersIdentify NewIdentify Data NewDataPersonalRelationships PersonalRelationshipsDetermineProvider DetermineInsolvency Provider fromInsolvency Data fromDataStakeholdersAttend Stakeholders CEOMeeting Attend CEOMeetingMeetingWorksMeetingWorksAll Stakeholdersreview All Stakeholders Slides &Current review Data Slides &Prior Current to CEO DataMeeting Prior to CEOMeetingPost UpdatedTemplate Post Updated ineRoom Template ineRoomHave VirtualMeeting Have Briefing VirtualMeeting BriefingWebExWebExeMail AllStakeholdersStake-eMail AllholdersReview CurrentReview Data CurrentNew DataAll Stakeholders New DataAll StakeholdersCollectMore CollectData MoreDataBrainstorm NewData Brainstorm Collection NewData Strategies CollectionStrategiesYesSufficientData SufficientDataNoProvider Not SolventSTOP PROCESSOption 1Option 1Option 2Option 2Option 3Option 3Option 4Option 4Option 5Option 5Option 6Option 6Option 7Option 7Capture TacitKnowledge Capture TacitKnowledgePost DecisionDiscussion Post Decision inDiscussion eRoom ineRoomImplementCourse Implement of ActionCourse of ActionDetermineCriteria Determine forSuccess Criteria forSuccessInclude Provideron Include ExtraNet Provideron ExtraNetMonitor ProcessMonitor Process©2004 Collaborative StrategiesProvider Insolvency ProcessReconveneGroup Reconvene & look atother Group options & look atother optionsNoProvider isYesImproving? Provider isImproving?Write-up Case andPost in eRoom


Electronic Collaboration ServicesServices To Support Group Workingand CollaborationSample Products: Planning and Implementation Application Development Process Re-Engineering Training and Maintenance Electronic Meeting Facilitation Change Management BPR Benchmarking ConsultingIssues: Expertise is the most valuable commodity in the electroniccollaboration (EC) market. It is highly unusual to find allnecessary expertise in-house. No single vendor offers a complete EC solution, and reengineeringor e-business often require multiple product andservice vendors to collaborate.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Electronic Collaboration ServicesIssues (continued): How do you identify and pull together the resources best suited toyour organization? How are meetings and forums successfully facilitated? What tools are best suited to your re-engineering needs? How do you identify the problems with the greatest potential forturnaround from EC? How is a consultant best used? What does he/she know thatpeople in your organization don’t? It is imperative that top management and all stakeholders supportany process change. How do you enlist and sustain their support? How do you evaluate the ROI for EC and should you?©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Electronic Collaboration ServicesIssues (continued): How do you find out what other organizations have done withEC? This kind of "homework" will help direct planning effortstoward projects with the greatest potential for success and awayfrom the disaster-waiting-to-happen. How do you assess your organization for its potential successwith EC? How do you benchmark other firms at their ability to support EC? Are “best practices” for the LAN the same for the Web? How do you drive collaboration at a strategic level? What makes collaboration critical or strategic to an organization?©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Group Project Management• Project management is a complex,coordinated, collaborative process.• Many tools are moving to the Web/intranet.• Organizations are using PUSH technologiesfor distributing information to projectmembers.• Most project management looks at resourceand time management.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


What is Different aboutElectronic Collaboration Projects?• Leverage: The technology gives youincredible leverage, enough to move theorganization!• Visibility: EC puts you in the spotlight• Accountability: Everyone is responsibleand the system can track that!• Complexity: More people and more ideas©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Virtual Projects• In the virtual project environment you cando more than just hold meetings.• Your project plan could be on the wall foreveryone to see, status could be done incolors• Make project changes by just having youravatar move graphic objects around on thewall.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Challenges toElectronic Collaboration Projects• Electronic collaboration catalyzes change.• The wrong people in the wrong roles:– Use technical people and tools to catalyze andimplement change.– OD people are adept at change, but don’t wantto use the technology.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Coleman’s LawPeople resist change...organizations resistchange to an exponentially greater degree!Corollary:- the larger the organization, the greater thechange, or...- the more complex the project the greater theexponent for the resistance to change©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Vendors in 2003 DPM Update• ACME Interactive• ActionBase• At Task• As-one Inc.• Business Engine• Celoxis Technologies• Common Office• Computer Associates• Davis Technologies• EDS TeamCenter• Epiware• eProject• eRoom• ESNA©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Vendors in 2002 DPM update• InventX• Lotus/IBM• Marin Research• MediaSolv.com Inc.• Meridian Proj. Sys.• Metier• Microsoft Project• NexPrise• OpenText• Pacific Edge• PlanView• Primavera• Project InVision (SME)• Project.net• SiteScape• Team Interactions• Welcom©2004 Collaborative Strategies


DPM 2003 Report Update• Covers 30 different tools/vendors• Examines trends and directions• How does DPM intersect with KM?• Feature/function matrix• Case studies• Volume 2 focuses on 4 specific areas:–AEC–IT/SW–NPD–PSA©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Volume 2- PSA Vendors• Entry Software• Evolve, Inc. (Acquired by Primavera)• Lawson Software•Niku• Novient/ Solution 6• Exigen Group (Portera)• QuickArrow, Inc.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Volume 2- AEC• Autodesk – Buzzsaw Professional• Citadon• MarketStreet.com• Meridian Project Systems• Primavera• ViaNovus©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Volume 2- IT/SW development• Advanced Mgt. Sol. (AMS)• Alacrity• ChangePoint• Eden Comm. Inc.• In 1.com• Rational Software (acquired by IBM)• Scitor Corp.• SpeeDev, Inc.• Starbase (acquired by Borland)©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Volume 2- NPD• Alibre• Alventive• CoCreate• Framework Technologies• Prarform• Powerstrat• PTC Windchill• Webscope• DevCycle• EDS TeamCenter PLM solution©2004 Collaborative Strategies


BreakBio break, and refreshments©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Section 5Electronic Collaboration:Evolution and Trends©2004 Collaborative Strategies


The Evolution of Collaboration1997 - 20041996 - 2001Inter/Intranet1993 - 19941991 - 19941989 - 1993Sustained,Value-AddedCommunitiesLearning CommunitiesCommunities of PracticeProject CommunitiesKnowledge ManagementGroupware CollaborativeApplications/Electronic CollaborationNetwork Applications (E-Mail)Networks/Infrastructure©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Collaborative Market Evolution• Initially most collaborative technologies were soldto early technology adopters• The focus was on proof of concept and selling togroups or departments• Today, collaborative solution must be sold to themainstream – the early majority©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Collaborative Market Evolution©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Trends: 2003-2004• Move from horizontal collaboration tools toa focus on specific industries and processesto add value• Example: collaboration in new drugdiscovery process, M&A transactions,Development of an RFP by sales©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Shifts in Focus• Presentation• Data/content• Horizontal• Features/functions• Clear tech ability• Techno-centric – withbehavioral change• Collaboration• Interaction/people• Vertical• Sales & Marketing• Rapid ROI• No behavioral changeand little learning©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Market Evolution• As the market matures, new marketing and sellingstrategies are needed. Need to define customerexperience to engage the early majority market.• Vendors must sell value as opposed to featuresand functions. Need to define the ROI and helpcustomer attain the expected benefits.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Market Evolution• Services will evolve from installation,training, support, customization andapplication development to strategicservices:– Where to focus the technology in the enterprise– What to do when faced with resistance tocollaboration in organization– How to measure value on an on-going basis©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Convergence – Asynchronous Market• Virtual Team Space - asynchronous collaborationvendors are adding synchronous functionality likeapplication sharing and IM• Convergence of Virtual Team Space Technologiesand DPM Tools• Full support for a collaborative data model:– Structured Data– Documents– Conversations–Tasks©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Key Shifts in Focus• Vendors - Develop experience architecture foryour organization– Customer-centric focus– New selling process focused on value to enterprise andend user experience – not features and functions– New product positioning and messaging©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Move from Project to Program Mgt.• More projects• Increased project complexity• Consolidation of project coordination(PMO) and resource distribution• Template proliferation in MS Project• More projects incorporating distributedteams©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Collaborative Enterprise Infrastructure• Collaboration being absorbed intoDocument/Content management– (e-Room/Documentum/EMC– iManage/Interwoven– Verity/Intraspect)• EIM/presence moving into infrastructure• Integration of presence/RTC with PBX(Cisco/Latitude, Polycom/Avaya, etc.)• Mobile collaboration• E-mail based collaboration (Kubi, Tacit, Zaplet,ePeople)©2004 Collaborative Strategies


EvolvingCollaboration Product AttributesAttribute 2001 2003 2005Real-timefunctionalityChat/IM and online presenceawareness, and some access to thirdpartyapplicationsSame as 2001 plus online meetings andapplication sharingSeamless availability of all real-timefunctionalityApplication deliverymodelsInternally managed software and thirdpartyand ISV-branded hosted servicesSame as 2001 plus software and hostedmodules for accessing individual TCA(team collaborative application featuresSame as 2003Integration withotherapplicationsSpecialized integration for exchanginginformation between TCAs and otherapplicationsStandard integration for accessingfunctionality and information in otherbusiness apps from within TCAsShared content and end-userrepositories allowing creation ofcollaborative and business content withvarious devicesWirelessaccessE-mail and pager notifications of eventssuch as new or changed contentoverdue tasks, and specific user logonsSame as 2001 plus wireless access to allstandard TCA functionalitySame as 2003 plus wireless access toother business applications through TCAs©2004 Collaborative Strategies


The Evolution of RTCRTC Time Line19801980’sNetworked audio/videogain momentum1995The Internetemerges1995T.120ratified1997MS NetMeeting 2.0released1990 20002001RTC convergence1979RTCconceivedEarly 1990H.324ratified1996H.323ratified1999Data/Webconferencingemerges© 2001, Collaborative Strategies. All rights reserved.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


RTC Issues• Performance• Usability• Security• Adaptability• Manageability©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Some Estimates for the RTC Future• By 2005, there should be over 94,000 companiesusing data/Web conferencing systems worldwide.• By 2005, there should be some 79.06 million peopleusing data/Web conferencing systems worldwide• CS anticipates continued growth in North America,but we also believe that Europe and Asia will becomekey markets for these tools, possibly reaching acombined 35%-45% market share by 2005.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


RTC Trends 2003-2004 – High Level• Trend 1: Convergence of technologies (IM, Webconferencing, Virtual Team Space) to supporthuman behaviors for interaction ex: e-meetings• Trend 2: Focus on a common interface tominimize learning and behavioral change(browser, Outlook or MS Office) ex: Linkify,Kubi• Trend 3: Rapid ROI, requires the technology to beembedded in a critical business process ex: drugdiscovery process and clinical trails with aninternational team©2004 Collaborative Strategies


RTC Trends 2003 -2004• Trend 4- The rise of the per-minute pricingmodel ex: Genesys, Raindance, etc.• Trend 5- The increasing internationalizationof data/Web conferencing• Trend 6- Support for: presence, status,expertise location and persistence ex:Linqware, Groove, Bantu©2004 Collaborative Strategies


E-Meetings: Technology Evolution• Web Conferencing (Real Time - Voice, Video and Data)– Reduce Communications Costs– Improve Communications• Virtual Team Space (Asynchronous)– Shared Work Environments– Shared Documents• Instant Messaging– Secure and enterprise oriented– Support expertise location, presence detection, etc.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Web Conferencing• Precursor technology for e-meetings• Built to support distance presentations, classes anddemonstrations– Major players:• PlaceWare (now Microsoft)• WebEX• Many other players (Latitude/Cisco, Raindance, Genesys, etc.)– Focus on one-to-many interactions– Not a high level of security– Focus is on content not the interaction©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Virtual Team Space• Definition: An asynchronous collaboration category which supportsvirtual teams by providing a secure virtual space in which to storedocuments or other content, interact (threaded discussions) and provides acontainer for all team work• Distributed Project Management tools:– eProject, OnProject, PlanView,• Virtual Team tools:– eRoom/Documentum/EMC, IBM/Lotus, OpenText,Verity/Intraspect• Process tools/workflow:– Filenet, Adobe, Staffware• Collaborative Document/Content Management©2004 Collaborative Strategies– Documentum/EMC, iManage/Interwoven


Instant Messaging• Evolving from consumer IM vendors to businessgrade Enterprise IM• New EIMs are offering business orientedfunctionality and a better security model• These offerings will be both Customer Premiseand ASP-based• New Vendors:– LinqWare, SameTime, Bantu, Jabber, FaceTime,WiredRed, VIACK©2004 Collaborative Strategies


The Future of VoIPVoIP traffic will rise to 500 billion minutes by2005 (Gartner Group)VoIP will account for approximately 75% ofworld voice services by 2007.90% of enterprises with multiple locations willstart switching to IP systems for voice over nextfive years.More than one half of large enterpriseorganizations have deployed or will deploy VoIPin the next 12 months, and nearly half of small andmedium organizations ©2004 Collaborative will Strategies do the same.


The Future of IM• SIP is based on TCP/IP and is in large part likelyto supercede H.323 and T.120. Additionally, SIPcan support many different types of devices,which T.120 and H.323 can’t do very well today.• Vendor interoperability: one tool can support allconsumer IM products (AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo,etc.)• The rise of EIM (enterprise IM)©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Dick Tracy Eat Your Heart Out!©2004 Collaborative Strategies


ReducedCycle TimeWebConferencingE-MeetingsVirtual TeamSpacesLevel of Interaction©2004 Collaborative Strategies


E-Meetings• CharacteristicsComplex InteractionsAd-hoc InteractionsImproved Meeting• Features– Integrated Voice, Video and Data– Persistence of data– Presence DetectionÐ End-to-end security©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Benefits of e-Meetings• E-Meetings support:• Making timely decisions.• Conducting status or regular “Calls ”.• Facilitate crisis communications.• Create, edit and review documents as a team.• Make presentations and share information.• Coordinated work and joint access to information.• Access to expertise and hard-to-find content.• Support distance negotiations.• Secure Tech-Savvy Clients.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Trends 2003 -2004• The rise of the per-minute pricing model.• The increasing internationalization ofdata/Web conferencing• The scramble for the small group – or e-meeting market• Integration of A/V/D conferencing©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Trends 2003-2004• P2P and ad-hoc conferencing• Increased focus on security• Moving from “innovators” and “earlyadopters” to “early majority”• Vendors learning to sell to a different andnon-technical audience• Value comes from specific process contextand content©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Some Estimates for the RTC Future• By 2005, there should be over 94,000 companiesusing data/Web conferencing systems worldwide.• By 2005, there should be some 79.06 million peopleusing data/Web conferencing systems worldwide• CS anticipates continued growth in North America,but we also believe that Europe and Asia will becomekey markets for these tools, possibly reaching acombined 35%-45% market share by 2005.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Market Trends and EvolutionDPM Trends©2004 Collaborative Strategies


How many of you use e-mail to coordinate anddetermine the status of your critical projects orprocesses?”• Yes ____• No ____©2004 Collaborative Strategies


“How many of you use Microsoft Projectto plan and execute your critical projects?”• Yes ___• No ___©2004 Collaborative Strategies


If you use other tools, which ones?• Write in the PM tools you currently usebesides MS Project ?• __________________• __________________• __________________©2004 Collaborative Strategies


How well do these tools work forproject planning?- Great! __- OK/adequate __- Poor __- Terrible __- Other __©2004 Collaborative Strategies


How well do these tools work forproject execution?- Great! __- OK/adequate __- Poor __- Terrible __- Other __©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Do you use a workflow or processmanagement tool?• Yes______• No ______• Which one __________________©2004 Collaborative Strategies


M&A Process Diagram – Sell SideInitial Referral for DealClient Requestto SellReviewDealEngagementLetterFind Expertsand AdvisorsTeamConductDueDiligenceConflicts GroupComplianceReviewEngagementOfficerReviewSet UpEngagementTeamPlan StrategyDefineObjectivesDevelopBuyerListSalesScriptShred DocumentsAnnounceDealExecutePurchaseAgreementNegotiationsBuyerDueDiligenceGoNo GoClientApprovalArchiveReturnDocuments toClientDevelopmentofTerm SheetLook foranothertarget©2004 Collaborative Strategies


DPM Trend 1• The movement from data-focused projectmanagement (PM) to people/relationshipfocuseddistributed project management(DPM)• The support of virtual teams for DPMprojects in value networks• The beginning of interaction managementand a focus on attention©2004 Collaborative Strategies


ManufacturerProvidingWebsiteDistributorsManufacturer(Competitors)Integral Performance Group, 2001AssemblersUltimateCustomers©2004 Collaborative Strategies


The Evolution of InteractionData/ContentData/ContentData/ContentPeople interact throughData/ContentPeople interact withPeoplearound/aboutData/ContentPerson to Data/Content©2004 Collaborative Strategies


DPM Trend 2• The movement from planning to doing• PM tools focus on planning and datadisplay for a trained project or processmanager• Today there are not always PM managersavailable for every project and they havenot been trained in WBS or other projector process methodologies©2004 Collaborative Strategies


DPM Trend 3• The movement from complex desktopbasedsystems to easy-to-use browserbasedsystems• All of the DPM tools reviewed in CS’DPM report were browser-based; evenolder PM tools (like Scitor and Primavera)have browser interfaces at least for displayand reporting of information©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Coleman’s LawPeople resist change, and organizations resist change to anexponentially greater degree!A corollary to this law is:The larger the organization, the greater the change, or themore complex the project the greater the exponent for theresistance to change.This resistance is true for any technology that supports somekind of change in behavior. It is much easier to change thesoftware to fit the behavior than the other way aroundof social interaction. Resistance is usually a fact with©2004 Collaborative Strategies


DPM Trend 4• The movement from local simple projects todistributed complex projects• The Internet has brought the cost ofcommunication almost to zero, and this is drivingincreased complexity in projects over time andspace• We are starting to see the Web no longer as just aplace to publish or sell, but a place to work!©2004 Collaborative Strategies


DPM Trend 5• The incorporation of knowledge managementprinciples into DPM tools and methodologies• Knowledge management is often a tough sell tomanagement• Virtual teams need to operate on knowledgemanagement principles anyway• Managing knowledge, or the re-use of informationby the current team or other teams, is critical for agood ROI©2004 Collaborative Strategies


DPM Trend 6• Expansion of the DPM market• 2000 – 18 Vendors in DPM report• 2001- 28 vendors in DPM report• 2002/3- 34 vendors in DPM report– Added a second volume – AEC, PSA, NPD,©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Direct and Indirect DPM GrowthDirect and Indirect Channel Revenue Estimatesfor the DPM MarketMillions of US Dollars7000.06000.05000.04000.03000.02000.01000.00.0Tota l1089.0339.0Total888.1177.6750 .0 710 .5Tota l1215.8243.1972.7Total1899.8380.01519 .8Total2968.2593 .62374.6©2004 Collaborative StrategiesTotal4637.8927.53710.31449.3Total7246.6579 7.32001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007IndirectDirect


Growth of the DPM MarketDPM Personnel Growth 2000-2003Number of People45004000350030002500200015001000500021122974Year211221122000200120022003 (estimated)©2004 Collaborative Strategies


DPM Trend 7• Maturation/consolidation of the DPM market• It’s a dynamic market, and CS expects to see onlyeight vendors left by 2006• Many companies have already been acquired:ABT/NexPrise, Artimis/Opus360,WebProject/Novient/Solution 6,Inovie/SDRC/EDS©2004 Collaborative Strategies


DPM Trend 7• CS expects eProject, Project.net, onProject,Rational Concepts, and PowerSteering to beacquired before year end 2003.• CS expects others to move to specific vertical orindustry markets: Scitor, Primavera, and BusinessEngine• Computer Associates, Lotus/IBM, Microsoft,Pacific Edge, PlanView, Welcom, ActionTechnologies, and SME to last through 2004©2004 Collaborative Strategies


DPM Trend 8• The integration of process and projectmanagement capabilities• The “wicked problem”: a problem where thescope of the problem and the outcome can not bedetermined before starting to deal with theproblem.• Move from Project Management (PM) to ProgramManagement (PGM) see white paper on CS sitesallow neither the problem nor the solution to beanticipated in advance (we all know, no projects©2004 Collaborative Strategiesare implemented as planned - in that gap lies the


PlanningProject ManagementResource- and Data-DrivenClient Server Architecture (Top Down)DoingLawsuitsChange Orders“The Wicked Problem”Scope CreepInteraction ManagementPeople-, Process-, andRelationship-DrivenProcess ManagementServletEngineFirewallBrowser-BasedClientHTTP tunneling Direct Connecting(No Firewall)Browser-BasedClientHybrid ArchitecturePeer-To-Peer Architecture©2004 Collaborative Strategies


DPM Trend 9• The ability to support ad-hoc as well as productionprocesses and projects• Peer-to-peer (P2P) architectures provide theability to support ad-hoc collaboration in valuenetworks• Client/server architectures provide security andscalability• A hybrid architecture provides the best of both©2004 Collaborative Strategies


DPM Trend 10- MovementTowards StandardsPercentagePercentage of Vendors Supporting XML80.00%70.00%60.00%50.00%40.00%30.00%20.00%10.00%0.00%43.33%XM LSearching43.33% 70.00%43.33%XM LIndexingType of XM L Support46.67%SOAP20012002©2004 Collaborative Strategies


E-Workplace of Tomorrow• What will change?– Technology– Physical work place–Society– Behavior– Organization– Balancing work and life©2004 Collaborative Strategies


eWorkPlace of Tomorrow• Changes in Technology– GDSS tools in call centers and blue-collar productionwork– Advances in personal identity and security systems– Group Intelligence Systems– Technologies that “fail” gracefully– Greater access to greater bandwidth at lower cost– Today’s online multi-player gaming technology will betomorrow’s leading edge business technology©2004 Collaborative Strategies


eWorkPlace of Tomorrow• Changes in Place– Work was your office– Today work is your desk– Tomorrow work is YOU– Past- place as perk (corner office)– Future- Place as work enabler (where you want to workinstead of have to work)– Sometimes virtual is preferential to physical (SARS)– Moving from working with “things” to ideas, contentand data©2004 Collaborative Strategies


eWorkPlace of Tomorrow• Societal Changes– Fully distributed educational infrastructure: educationcomes to the student– Education to support the skills for development andmaintenance of physical and e-communities– The rise of guilds (could be online communities)– Online voting (no hanging chads!) – current CAproblem!– The rise of the virtual committee! Oh My!– Defined by your communities (ex: gangs, colors,behaviors)– Evolving social structures,©2004 CollaborativenotStrategiesbounded by geographybut rather by interest and connectedness (ex: AARP-


eWorkPlace of Tomorrow• Behavioral Changes– Fewer laws, rules of engagement defined by thecommunity (physical or virtual)– More Project oriented work (see Tom Peters)– Better feedback systems for greater self-consciousness(videoconferencing)– Stop separating experts from lay people– Change in attitude: increase our initial respect for eachother– Ethnographic analysis of work is common©2004 Collaborative Strategies


eWorkPlace of Tomorrow• Organizational Changes– Flexible workforce, project work, contractors for hire,low-friction talent marketplace– CEO takes responsibility for organization’s intellectualcapital, and it is accounted for on the balance sheet– Change recognition and reward structures as well ascompensation packages to support new ways ofworking– Less hierarchy, more trust enabled by better security(“good fences make good neighbors”)©2004 Collaborative Strategies


eWorkPlace of Tomorrow• Balancing Work and Life– Can’t distinguish your work from your life (jobtitle is your identity)– Is your job a role? When are you out of it?Forced disconnectedness– Multi-taskers vs. mono-focus ( differentcognitive styles) or divergent and non-linearthinkers vs. linear thinkers©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Section 6Collaborative Benchmarking(Exercise)©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Formula forElectronic Collaboration SuccessTechnology+ Culture+ Economics+ PoliticsElectronicCollaborationSuccess©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Assessing Your Organization’sCollaborative Potential (handout)TechnologyCultureEconomicsPoliticsScore = Score = Score = Score =Weight = 1 Weight = 2 Weight = 3 Weight = 4Subtotal =Score X WeightSubtotal =Score X WeightSubtotal =Score X WeightSubtotal =Score X Weight+ ++=Total©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Audience Feedback to Exercise• Your total weighted score was?• < 20• 21-30• 31-40• 41-50• 51-60• 61-70• 71-80• 81 +©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Rating Your Organization• The highest score you can get is 100.• Most U.S. companies score between 45-55.• Here is the scale for success:1-60 poor61-80 good81-100 excellent©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Results of BenchmarkingEight Organizations• For an internal benchmark, it is important to interview 25-30people to get an accurate collaborative view of theorganization.• For an external benchmark, six or seven market leaders isadequate to deduce trends in collaboration in an industry oroverall. It is important to talk to at least five people in eachorganization.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Average TCEP for all Companiesin the Benchmark StudyHewlett-Packard 74Texas Instruments 68Microsoft 86Cisco Systems 69Eli Lilly 78Arthur Andersen 77Shell Services 70Sea-Land 56Average Score 72.25©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Why Were the BenchmarkedOrganizations Successful?• They were early adopters of collaborative technologies.• They intuitively believed that collaboration was critical to theirfuture success.• They all had support from the management team forcollaborative projects.• They believed there was significant economic benefit fromcollaboration.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Why Were the BenchmarkedOrganizations Successful? (2)• Most of the benchmarked companies are leaders in theirindustry and want to stay that way.• Some of these companies have a culture or missionstatement focused on supporting collaboration while otherssupport technical excellence, and small team collaborationallows them to achieve excellence.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Benchmark Study Results• Cisco scored the highest, probably because collaboration isembedded in their culture.• SeaLand scored the lowest, probably because they were just gettingstarted with the technologies and evolving their culture. They arealso in a technologically backwards industry.• The more support and use of the technologies by top management,the more successful the project or company was.• In organizations not successful with collaboration, we see “do as Isay, not as I do”, which does not work.• Collaboration between the company and customers or suppliers wasencouraged.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Benchmark Study Results (2)• Cultural norms for collaboration included: trust, common goals,acceptance of risk taking, and sharing.• Culturally, HP was best and Shell the worst.• Cisco’s staff was best in seeing collaboration as a work enabler;Shell was the worst.• Process outcomes look at how the benefits of collaboration can bemeasured; Cisco was the best at this, and Shell the worst.• H-P got a median score; however, we believe that H-P is asophisticated collaborative culture and that they were being veryhard on themselves.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Benchmark Study Results (3)• Most compensation plans did not support collaboration or teamingdirectly; they were mostly supported through stock options.• Many of the benchmarked firms were experimenting withcompensation and reward structures to support collaboration.• Most companies realized that they had to compete globally, andthat collaboration was necessary in order to achieve this.• We see collaboration evolving from e-mail to electroniccollaboration, from electronic collaboration to knowledgemanagement, and from knowledge management to community.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Benchmark Study Results (4)• Problems occur because technology is revolutionary while cultureis evolutionary.• An impedance mismatch between technology and culture is the bigproblem.• Most of the high tech firms we benchmarked had less of amismatch because they had cultures that were used to adopting newtechnologies, especially ones they had created.• We believe most organizations are made up of a group ofcommunities. The issue is how to initiate, support, and sustainthese communities electronically.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Section 7Best Practices:15 Rules For SuccessWith Electronic Collaboration and10 Rules For SuccessWith On-Line Communities©2004 Collaborative Strategies


15 Rules for Success with EC1. Find an electronic collaboration champion intop management (more than one is better)!2. Electronic collaboration catalyses change…plan for it!3. Measure productivity prior to the pilot to helpjustify it’s cost/ROI to management.4. Collaboration values can be intangible, look atbusiness benefits rather than only ROI.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


15 Rules for Success with EC5. When choosing a pilot project, listen to thepeople involved in the pilot project; they areprocess experts. Don't be afraid to makechanges.6. Make sure that the pilot solves a specificproblem, is visible to the whole organizationand has the full support of those who will use it.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


15 Rules for Success with EC7. Pick electronic collaboration solutions based on thebusiness needs.8. Don’t expect that any one electronic collaborationproduct can fix it all.9. Don’t expect a single software vendor to offer you allthe services you need.10. Make sure the collaboration software fits withexisting data and systems.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


15 Rules for Success with EC11. Once you are successful with collaboration,realize you will have to deal with not onlythe knowledge management problem, butthe focus will turn outwards to customersand suppliers.12. Make sure the collaborative tools do not getin the way of inter-cultural communication.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


15 Rules for Success with EC13. Be careful about automating inefficientprocesses - poor productivity gains.14. You can't change people overnight! It takescourage to change a culture. Be prepared forresistance. Use humor and communication toovercome resistance. Applaud those whochange!15. Electronic collaboration can be verypolitical…make sure it is a big win!©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Ten Steps to EstablishingOnline Communities1. Identify community founders/initiators, and explain reasonfor starting, ongoing roles, and participation.2. Provide a good reason for people to be in the community.What are the benefits?3. Provide a community member directory and an easy way formembers to contact each other and learn about each other.The goal here is to develop trust.4. Establish a way to handle conflict at the initiation of thecommunity. Present these rules clearly. Conflicts must behandled quickly and fairly or they will tear the communityapart.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Ten Steps to EstablishingOnline Communities (2)5. Provide hosted or focused chat. Facilitator with editorialcapabilities (with editorial policies stated) discussionowners drive the discussion to a decision, conclusion oraction.6. Create informal spaces for people to socialize.7. Create a critical reason for members to be active in thecommunity.a. It should be the only place they can get critical information;b. people should receive intrinsic rewards from the community that make itimportant for them to be there personally, and;c. people enjoy interacting with experts in the community and should be ableto learn much that is helpful to them in their everyday work.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Ten Steps to EstablishingOnline Communities (3)8. Bring newbies up to speed fast (guides, buddies, docents,tours, FAQs). It is also a good idea to post or e-mail newmembers the "rules of engagement" for acceptable behaviorin the community.9. Keep the content fresh and new with critical informationand regular events that keep people coming back toparticipate in the community.10. Monitor participation frequency and quality, and rewardthose who deserve it.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Total Cost EnvelopeProjectCosts $Technology DecisionsCustomizationTestingDeploymentIncreasing complexity,costly investment,staff and overheadRule of Thumb:$1 of License = $5/6LifecycleTimeThrough ASP 3x, betterROI©2004 Collaborative Strategies


How Do You Determine ROI?• Easiest: look at travel costs and time saved, forexample: number of people in the class/meeting xcost of travel x the cost of time in the class ormeeting.• Harder: looking at opportunity cost, what did youmiss while you were away? What was thepotential cost of not being there?• Hardest: determining value of intangibles. How doyou calculate the value of a relationship if there isno direct sale? How do you determine the value ofinformation?©2004 Collaborative Strategies


How Do You Determine ROI?• Is ROI the right question to ask?• There are three types of intellectual capitalto look at:– Structural Capital – the technical andorganizational infrastructure– Organizational Capital – the structure of theorganization, the “tacit” knowledge– People Capital©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Back to the Future (of• Ubiquitous ScenarioCollaboration)– Every electronic device is Internet capable/smart– Inanimate objects are smart (nano and molecularcomputing… smart roads, smart cups, smarty pants!)– People and devices are all clamoring for attention– You can collaborate with anyone, anywhere at anytimeand at almost any level of interaction– When is it time not to collaborate? The sound of onetoilet flushing!©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Future: Long Term• Ubiquitous Collaboration: what’s needed?– Security – biometric security– Quality of Service (QoS) – gigabit bandwidth– Access – interfaces everywhere• The ability to generate trust– Reputation engines in community– Community vs. Network– Physical and virtual needed©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Section 8Questions To Ask Before StartingKnowledge Management orElectronic Collaboration Projects©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Defining The Problem• Is collaboration a critical part of the problem?(Collaboration requires coordination andcommunication between two or more individuals, ineither synchronous or asynchronous (or both)modes.)• What functions are critical to solving this or yourcurrent collaboration problem?• How would collaborating in a “value network” bedifferent from collaborating on an intranet?• Where would your trust level be?©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Is This a Collaborative Problem?As this diagramindicates, we believescollaborativedifficulties for mostorganizations fall intwo categories:information accessand collaborativeproblems.The Problem SpaceInformationandDataAccessProblemsCollaborativeProblems©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Creating the Collaborative ProjectScenario (exercise)• Exercise: Answer the questions on thescenario form as best you can.• Each participant will present their projectscenario to the group for advice and critique• Try to pick a real project in yourorganization.©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Defining The Problem• Is collaboration a critical part of the problem?(Collaboration requires coordination and communicationbetween two or more individuals, in either synchronous orasynchronous (or both) modes.)• What functions are critical to solving this or your currentcollaboration problem?• How would collaborating in a “value network” bedifferent from collaborating on an intranet?• Where would your trust level be?©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Framing the Problem: Questions To AskBefore Starting A Collaborative Project1. Whose budget will support this initiative?2. Whose operation is most affected by the outcomes? Whichdepartments in your organization are most in need of thistechnology?3. Who sets the specific objectives for this project? Why?4. Who is the most important sponsor? Who is thechampion for this project (someone at the management teamlevel)?©2004 Collaborative Strategies


Framing the Problem: Questions To AskBefore Starting A Collaborative Project (2)5. Who has the most at stake, in terms of investment andcredibility?6. Who determined you should be moving in this direction?7. Whose support is vital to success?8. Who might be the target population for this project?9. How will you bound the project (in time, geography,content, process, etc.)?©2004 Collaborative Strategies


For More Information• For a copy of these slides see:• http://www.collaborate.com/workshops/wks1.html• User Name = workshop_1• Password = bumblebee• About Collaborative Strategies– David Coleman, Managing Director– Davidc@collaborate.com– www.collaborate.com– (415) 282-9197©2004 Collaborative Strategies

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines