» Archive for October, 2004

What Works Better When?

Sunday, October 10th, 2004 by Jonathan Spira

Last week, in looking at Microsoft’s strategy for real-time communication and collaboration, we discussed how new SIP-based applications are allowing users to initiate phone call, conference, or IM session simply by clicking on an icon.  Of course, that gives users a choice of tools – and they need to make the choice both wisely and contextually.  Today, we’ll take a look at when to use which tool or technology in order to make it easier for knowledge workers to find, communicate, and collaborate.  Over the past couple of years, we have interviewed countless knowledge workers about their usage habits with respect to various real-time tools, and queried them to find out what works better under which circumstances.  Since we at Basex have been using an enterprise-class IM system since 1998, we are able to interpolate our experiences here as well.

Many knowledge workers still think of the telephone first and foremost when it comes to real-time communications.  The uninitiated might ask, “why couldn’t you just pick up the phone instead of using IM?”.  In actuality, the phone may be more disruptive in many cases.  There are a number of reasons:

1.)    It rings (loudly) and others may be made aware of the call.  With instant messaging, one can discretely answer someone’s question (or avoid a third party overhearing).
2.)    One can carry on several IM conversations simultaneously.  This is not possible on the phone, movies showing Hollywood moguls with three phones in hand notwithstanding.
3.)    It is discreet.  If the user is actually on a phone conversation, that person can query someone else via IM without putting the call on hold.
4.)    It is synchronous, but “less” synchronous than a telephone conversation.  Pauses of more than a moment on the phone are considered rude; this is generally not the case in IM, as only much longer pauses are noticeable.
5.)    Several people can “talk” (type) at the same time without being disruptive.

This begets the question, under which circumstances is IM  “better” than old-fashioned telephony?  And under which circumstances might IM be more appropriate than e-mail is a natural follow-up question.

There are some discussion topics that truly do not have to be memorialized in e-mail, which may be, as Oliver North found out, archived for future generations.  In addition, the user must be aware of others’ presence awareness states, such as “available,” “do not disturb,” “away from my office momentarily,” etc.

One phenomenon we have observed is a type of meeting that we might call a “part-time meeting.”  We can define a part-time meeting as one where participants do not have to pay 100% attention and can do other work simultaneously.

These are supported quite nicely by IM since, unlike leaving a telephone conversation for 30 seconds, one can see everything that was “said” in the IM client.  Additionally, participants in a part-time meeting can jump in and out of the meeting as necessary.  In fact, participants can be in more than one part-time meeting concurrently.

We at Basex have found these meetings far more effective than teleconferences.  Why?  In many teleconferences, one or two people predominate, and others follow along silently.  But the vast majority of participants must stay glued to the phone regardless, in case a tiny tidbit of information requires their attention, or someone directs a specific question to that individual.  With part-time meetings, the lesser-involved meeting participants are able to pay the necessary amount of attention to the dialogue, but not devote their exclusive attention to it.

So what works better when?  Here’s our take:

IM is better than telephone when….
a.) there are many people participating and all need to talk/be active
b.) at least one participant is in an environment where people could listen in, and privacy or confidentiality is an issue
c.) there are a number of many-to-many conversations taking place

Telephone is better than IM when….
a.) there are many people participating passively, and one person speaking (such as a CEO announcing a merger or acquisition)
b.) a more personal touch is required, and the nuances of voice matter (e.g., bad news)

E-mail is better than IM when….
a.) the text needs to be memorialized (archived for future reference, although more and more companies are archiving IM sessions)
b.) it contains an announcement to be sent to many people

IM is better than e-mail when….
a.) an issue demands an immediate response, i.e. it is both urgent and important
b.) the issue is relatively trivial, such as lunch plans

More so than ever, collaborative technologies are becoming more and more integrated into how we work.  As these becomes more pervasive within organizations, we will have more of an expectation for people to be there – wherever “there” may be.

Jonathan B. Spira is CEO and Chief Analyst at Basex.

Three Visionary Views: Basex Strategic Thinkers Conference, September 2004

Friday, October 1st, 2004 by Jonathan Spira

As frequent attendees of Basex Strategic Thinkers conferences know, one won’t find the VP of marketing from an IT company on the podium presenting his company’s 12-18 month roadmap.  Most speakers are end users, seasoned executives with experience in selecting, deploying, and managing Collaborative Business Environments (CBEs) and they speak about their experience in the trenches.

It is, however, equally important to hear from the companies that supply the tools used to build Collaborative Business Environments.  To round out the program, Basex invites senior executives from vendor companies to participate in the Visionary Vendor panel.  Each of the selected companies thrives on innovation and we ask executives to detail their long-term views on how Collaborative Business Environments will evolve and what the collaborative workplace will be like in a three to five year timeframe.  We also proscribe their presenting a 12-18 month product roadmap or infomercial.

So what did the Visionary Vendors have to say?  Elizabeth Eiss, president and chief operating officer of Xpert Universe, an expertise location company, pointed out that undocumented knowledge will be key to successful Collaborative Business Environments.  Basex’ own research demonstrates that most knowledge (as much as 80%) is stored in people’s heads, and that this resource leaves the building at the end of the day.  Managing it  – and making it accessible throughout the enterprise – will be a key challenge.  Moreover, creating rich tools with a CBE – possibly even replicating a face-to-face meeting virtually – will make all the difference.  When deploying such tools as expertise location, companies, Eiss pointed out, will need to adhere to Basex’ One Environment Rule to provide a rich user experience.

Graham Glynn, founder and CEO of Learning Management Solutions, pointed out that knowledge workers really need a single environment for accessing and organizing information – one that essentially follows them from cradle to grave, making it as simple to go to last week’s presentation file as course material from university a decade earlier.  This type of tool should serve the individual user, first and foremost, he noted, and should cover both personal and professional activities.  The challenge ahead is to connect information from multiple sources into information sets appropriate for projects and special interests.  Who hasn’t wanted to go back five or ten years, to coursework from university or notes from a chance meeting?

Eric Winsborrow, senior vice president, corporate strategy, for Cloudmark, an e-mail security company, stood in at the last moment for Cloudmark CEO Karl Jacob, and pointed out that many companies are still caught in an unsuccessful battle against spam e-mail.  If this scourge is not resolved sooner rather than later, the very effectiveness of the tools we rely upon on a minute-by-minute basis, such as e-mail, will be significantly diminished.  Spam e-mail represents a grave risk for the future of CBEs if not contained.  Attendees might’ve imagined they were suddenly in a university biology class, when Winsborrow turned his attention to the DNA of spam e-mail messages.  E-mail – as well as other documents – has a genetic map and each message a DNA.  Classifying e-mail messages by genetic similarity may provide a new means of identifying spam e-mail more accurately.  Spam e-mail has, in effect, “SpamGenes.”

The outlook for the future of Collaborative Business Environments, according to our speakers, is bright.  CBEs will allow knowledge workers to tap experts and tacit knowledge, and will maintain that knowledge and more from cradle to grave.  The CBE will be spam free, for the most part, as tools which identify spam based on a message’s DNA will get knowledge workers the messages they need and relegate junk mail to the dustbin.

Ellen Pearlman is a senior analyst at Basex.


google