They are the future. In fact, the way consumerisationâ€™s moving, they are the present. Mobility and wireless, virtualisation and service orientation, Moore, Metcalfe and Gilder, the opensource gang, Jerry Garcia and Arctic Monkeys, and Steve Jobs. They help define the environment.
Some time ago I started working on a four-pillar model for enterprise architecture, in the belief that everything we do will be classified into one of the following:
Syndication: We will subscribe to stuff yanked out of humongous content publishers and consume them via a syndication, alert and aggregation facility. RSS gone ballistic. SAP and Oracle Financials meet Wall Street Journal Europe and Reuters. All stored somewhere both within the firewall as well as without. Text and voice and video.
Search: We will do some ad-hoc yanking ourselves, getting used to a Google-meets-StumbleUpon world where collaborative filtering of role and context helps relevance go up, and there are simple yet powerful heuristic tools because we can tag things and vote on them for future reference. Again from storage within and without.
Fulfilment: Thereâ€™ll be a bunch of things where we need to discover whatâ€™s out there by syndication, search and learning. Refine what we discover to a set of things weâ€™re interested in. Check out captive and brokered and otherwise made-accessible inventory. Discover price and select item. Provide shipping instructions or logistical information. Identify our right and authority to exchange value. Exchange that value via card or account or wampum. Be fulfilled. Flights, hotels, stocks, consultants, books, music, food. All fulfilled.
Conversation: Another bunch of things gluing all this together. Voice. Video. E-mail (though it will decay into pretend-snail-mail and die, I hope). Blogs and wikis. IM. Texting. Whatever. Ways of discovering, co-creating and enriching the value in information. Information that you need to fulfil things you have to do.
None of this will work if the information we need to get pushed to us or get pulled down by us is hidden behind walled gardens. Walls made of weird DRM constructs like Region codes on DVDs. Walls that hold our information and make it harder for us to rip it and mash it and make something useful out of it.
And DRM is a cater-cousin of identity and authentication and permissioning. All blessed by the grand panjandrums of information security, or escapees from the Y2K-marries-Basle-II-and-then-leaves-her-for-Sarbanes-Oxley-while-no-oneâ€™s-watching zoo.
But thereâ€™s good stuff too. NAND RAM may make our boot-up times easier. Consumer boradband wireless may well be reality soon, and the 20-year threat of telephony becoming software is finally happening. Opensource keeps redrawing the lines for the desktop and for core productivity tools. Apple goes Intel. Itâ€™s a good time.
I want to be able to come in to work. Get instant karma at my desk, with whatever passes for a desktop and whatever passes for a connect. Donâ€™t care. Identify myself with whichever two factors are in vogue that day, provided they leave my cells intact and my privacy unflustered.
Then I take a look at whatâ€™s come in via my aggregator. Roll with it while I StumbleUpon the web. Stimulated by what I see in the aggregator or the web, I start pulling things down from the great data warehouse in the sky, preparing to create value by fulfilling something or the other. And all the time Iâ€™m talking to people and sharing metaphorical coffee and and and.
Itâ€™s happening now. So I think itâ€™s time to keep elaborating on the four pillars, have them shot down and rebuilt as many times as possible. Egoless.
So this is what Iâ€™ll do in this part of the blog.
Talking about pillars. Christopher Wren designed the Guildhall where I live. 17th century wonderful support-free curved roof. They had town planners then. â€œYour edifice wonâ€™t stand up, you need more pillars in the middleâ€. â€œSays who? Iâ€™m the architect hereâ€. â€œSays we, and you donâ€™t get to build your beautiful building unless you do what we say. Four more pillars pleaseâ€.
Dejected, he built them. In the central area. Just as they asked.
Six inches short.
Is the customer ready for this?
This is not a trivial point. The social and cultural aspects of such a move need to be thought out and prepared for, one of the reasons why this hasnâ€™t happened as yet. So letâ€™s take a look at what has been happening, but perhaps with a slightly sideways perspective.
One. We have started the process of giving the customer control of transaction execution. Any purchase/fulfilment on the web, even checking in for a flight. We have started the process of providing the customer transparency of the transactionâ€™s status. Fedex. UPS. Amazon. eBay. Everyoneâ€™s got it. We have started the process of providing the customer transparency of information held about the customer, in terms of Freedom of Information or Data Protection or whatever. Now all we are talking about is transferring the responsibility of looking after the customerâ€™s own relatively static information to the customer. How different is this from my being in control of my preferences for Amazon or eBay or the Wall Street Journal online. Establish who I am. Indicate what I am interested in, and not interested in. Go through some process of validating my financial status formally; an example would be getting â€œverifiedâ€ status on PayPal. And bingo, there I am.
From a consumerisation perspective we have already taken step one of â€œgiving the customerâ€™s information back to the customerâ€. What consumer product/service providers have not yet done is step two, allowing the customer to share information about vendor A-related activity with vendor B. And this will happen. Despite the wholly predictable pushback from the product/service vendors, who lose a layer of lock-in as a result.
From an institutional perspective there is much to do, given where we are now. The vendor-lock-in argument is even more compelling here, with institutions largely unable to accept or sometimes even comprehend the implications of such a move, that of allowing the customer to share â€œyourâ€ activity information with a competitor. But it will happen. Only a matter of time.
Before we even go into the nature of the technology underpinning all this, in terms of identity formats and microformats, public and private keys, the nature of the encryption, the federated versus centralised models, how trust is conferred and authenticated, what kind of 1000lb gorillas are needed, the role of biometrics, the need for multifactor authentication processes, transaction guarantees and the process involved in guaranteeing, privacy protection, appropriateness of solutions for anti-money-laundering and identity theft protection and the economics of large scale provision of related infrastructure, we need to get the first question answered. Is the customer ready for this?
I can only speak for myself. Would I like to share my eBay activity with Christies or Bonhams or Sothebys? Would I like to share my British Airways activity with Lufthansa and United and Virgin? My hotel and car activity? My books and music activity? Yes yes yes.
I get to control my core â€œstaticâ€ information. Who else knows this as well as I do? I get it verified by an independent arbiter, much like I need a birth certificate to get a passport. I choose whom I share what with.
I choose. I look after. I am the beneficiary.
Thatâ€™s the key.
Then I can get all the downstream benefits of collaborative filtering and recommendations. Then my marketplaces get all the benefits of democratised reputation and rating and profiling and prediction.
A lot has to change. And will change. Provided the plan is: I choose. I look after. I am the beneficiary.
A couple of years ago, in conversation with Doc Searls, we touched on similar themes. He recounted a tale of the time he spent in Africa, and how markets there worked on relationship first and transaction second, in terms of the way the conversations flow. Something along the lines of â€œHowâ€™s your uncleâ€™s wisdom tooth doing?â€ â€œDid your son-in-law finally learn to drive?â€ â€œDid you hear about Nathanielâ€™s adventure?â€
Doc posited that the relationship-then-only-when-called-for-transaction route was the way conversations should go, and that we had somehow lost our way in the West. Having spent half my life in India, this resonated with me.
The next day, I heard Dick Hardt do his Subterranean Homesick Blues bit with Identity. For those who havenâ€™t seen it, itâ€™s a must. You can find it here. And I walked away loving it. Yes, why canâ€™t I share my Amazon buying profile with other booksellers? Why canâ€™t I share my airline and hotel information more usefully across multiple providers? Isnâ€™t it my information in the first place?
And rattling around in the back of my mind was some of the stuff in Malcolm Gladwellâ€™s Tipping Point arguments. [Wow. I was wondering how best to describe the book and the arguments. Of course. Wikipedia, what else?]. There was a sense that connectors, mavens and salesmen demonstrated weak-interaction behaviour in terms of soft-hands non-exploitative relationships with their network of influence. Which worked so much better than the MLM and pyramid selling techniques we are all more used to.
Iâ€™m posting this for a very simple reason. Trying to gauge what people are doing about this, the need to give customer information back to the customer. Whoâ€™s doing it rather than just talking about it?
Identity and authentication and permissioning are critical to the buildout of 21st century enterprise applications.
Thereâ€™s always a liberty versus licence issue in situations like this. Even the liberal organisations tend to have some controls, usually to provide prudent proof that rogue employees werenâ€™t doing something illegal, and so everyone tends to have some filtering and blocking.
Where I work, the debate rages every now and then, usually catalysed by a site being blocked for ostensibly good reasons but having unintended consequences. Like having to go home to get work done.
Thanks to Jackie Danicki for reminding me of this via one of her recent posts. She pointed me towards a discussion on the subject at TechDirt, which fundamentally made the point that all the studies supporting control of surfing at work were done by firms somehow related to the sale of control software. No surprise there.
Why is it that so many firms buy this argument, that staff should somehow be blocked from doing anything but work at work? The only explanation I can find is that even in the 21st century, people spend more time trying to measure and control inputs rather than outputs. More fodder for Fossilfools, I guess.
I thought that people get paid for results rather than effort. Analogous to JM Keynesâ€™ engine of healthy enterprise being profit rather than thrift, controlling and monitoring inputs alone is not just dangerous but ultimately counterproductive. You might as well get knowledge workers to punch cards on their way in and their way out.
Which is fine, but then firms have to bear the consequences. Clockwatching. Work to rule. Unionisation. Contractual commitments to pay overtime. Jobsworth attitudes. Tunnel vision. You treat people like machines, you should expect mechanical results.
Why dangerous? If things go this way, I guess I can foresee a time where spouses and children start class actions against firms for providing their partner/parent with a BlackBerry. Stealing personal and family timeâ€¦.. I wonâ€™t laugh, it could happen yet. Oh frabjous day calloo callay.
And the correct fossilised response would be? To continue issuing the Blackberries, but telling staff they are banned from using them at home or outside office hours. Ricardo Semler come back all is forgiven.
As long as people â€œget their job doneâ€ and â€œdo no evilâ€ there should be an absence of inappropriate controls. Unwise firms will have to watch their key assets, their people, leave otherwise.