One of the benefits of hindsight is that the dust has had a chance to settle, the echoes of the hype have died away and one can see what actually happened.
So, in retrospect, what has 2009 given us? We have Windows 7 from Microsoft, the increasing ubiquity of the iPhone from Apple, increasing diversification from Google plus the new(ish) kids on the block - Facebook and Twitter - have become firmly entrenched in our lives.
I must say I am surprised at the popularity of Windows 7, not because I don't like it - I do, very much - but because, as a user, I don't see much difference from Vista, and I could never understand why that received such a bad press. But certainly for a lot of companies who have 'rested' on Windows XP, this is an opportunity to upgrade and one that shouldn't be missed; technology is not a one-off investment and needs to be 'topped up'. Hopefully, we will also see local authorities and the rest of the public sector make a long overdue move from Internet Explorer 6. Whether that is a conservative move to Internet Explorer 8 or a bolder move to Chrome of Firefox is less of a concern.
While Microsoft continues to polish its golden eggs, Apple have continued to proceed apace with the iPod/iPhone technology. I have a lot of respect for Apple - although I must confess that I find the blind devotion of many of their aficionados rather off-putting - and their established strategy of tying their software to prescribed hardware continues to pay dividends in driving technology interfaces forwards.
Google's ongoing growth is perhaps easier to define in financial terms than anything else. While the core search engine remains largely unchanged apart from its logo (the subtle '20th Anniversary of the Wallace and Gromit Characters' being my favourite from this year), we have seen a slow take up of Google docs and the guarded release of Google Wave. Whilst I admire Google's drive to diversify rather than resting on its search engine, I can't say that I see Google docs winning a huge take up from business in the short term - it's too unclear who can see what and just where the data is being held - and I've been underwhelmed by the time I've spent evaluating Wave. For business, I think time would be better spent on Microsoft's excellent - but obscure - Groove software, which is excellent for sharing documents and working collaboratively on a shared set of assets.
Facebook and Twitter both became firmly established this last year, thoroughly dividing those with exposure to them when it comes to any discussion about their use and value. Facebook is probably the most expensive diversion ever developed, having taken tens of millions in investment yet reporting a profit for the first time only late in 2009, despite a reported half a billion - one third of web users in the world! - allegedly being signed up. (It's worth remembering that AOL, valued at $162B ten years ago, on the basis of its users, is now worth around $3B.) Twitter's value is even more vague and, with no fees or advertising to support it, was no doubt very relieved by the massive cash injection from Bing and Google a couple of months ago when both search engines bought licences to Twitter's content. I must say that while I can see Facebook generating a medium term profit with better, targeted advertising, I'm still struggling to see where Twitter is heading (and that is speaking as a user).
And if that's what we've had over the last year, what does the next twelve months hold? The industry and the web being what it is, there are no doubt some surprises out there and I'm not going to try and call them. What I would like to do is briefly look at the scheduled releases and try to extrapolate some of the trends that we have seen. From the big players, we have Microsoft's Office 2010, Apple's Tablet, and Google's Chrome operating system to look forward to, as well as the Android OS for 'phones. I think it's also worth considering the influx of 'apps' into our lives and where the so-called Web 2.0 technologies are taking us. Finally, the mysterious 'cloud' that is appearing in the media is worth a word or two.
Office 2010 has been released as a beta test version, which I've been running for a few weeks now. There has been some refinement of the new interface added in Office 2007, which has also been belatedly applied to Outlook, but I must say I've not come across any major improvements. Microsoft Groove, mentioned above, has been rebranded as 'SharePoint WorkSpace' although this is misleading as it provides an alternative to Sharepoint. On the whole, I can't see much incentive for business to upgrade, except for the consideration that this is the software where the most focus will be for security patches and ongoing development.
Probably the most exciting hardware launch of the year, assuming it actually happens, of course, will be Apple's tablet, essentially an iPhone the size of a netbook. The iPod Touch and iPhone have taken the introduction of internet technology into our lives and stepped it up significantly: there has never been so much development - or purchasing - of small applications. The only limitation to these devices so far has been size and the tablet, roughly ten inches long, will get around that. (The fashion industry has been trying to introduce a 'man bag' for years and that may now happen as we need something fashionable in which to carry around our iSlates or whatever they end up being called.)
Less exciting but possibly of equal significance in the long term is Google's Chrome operating system. It was perhaps a bit confusing giving it the same name as their (slightly underwhelming) browser but there is some logic. As I understand it, the Chrome OS will run all the components of a netbook - sound card, monitor etc - but from an application perspective will consist of little more than a browser. If you were a confirmed user of Google docs as well as other online apps such as Spotify, then this will make some kind of sense. Whether people are willing to run everything off the web and keep nothing local is, I think, very doubtful in the short term but Google are in that elite club of companies who can afford to play a very long game, laying foundations now for operating paradigms that may only be widely adopted in a few years' time.
Similarly, while its Android operating system and associated mobile devices (such as the Nexus 1, also due for release in 2010) may seem like a lost cause when placed up against the iPhone, Apple have made notable mistakes and had significant failures in the past - indeed their fortunes were wholly resurrected by the return of Steve Jobs and the development of the iPod - and I think it's safe to assume that Google has its eye on the long game here, too.
Whether users have an iPhone or an Android device, though, they will have one thing in common and that is an increasing appetite for apps to run on those devices. Indeed, as we update our status using the Facebook app and search for items to buy through Amazon's app, it's tempting to think that all these technologies are converging. The truth, though, is more subtle than that. The internet has provided us with a common platform and for the foreseeable future any snapshot of our personal and professional technologies is going to consist of the devices that we use to access the internet and the applications we use to manipulate the data that we store there. And that includes business information, of course.
Any forward looking business will now have a web presence of some description and probably be storing and maintaining data in that environment: we now have an increasing range of options for accessing and using that data. One question that naturally arises from this is how do we anticipate how much space and processing power we will need to support these new ways of working? The answer to this, in theory, is 'the cloud'. At a high level and from a users perspective, this is an environment that 'extends' to meet the demands placed on it. Thus, as you require more space or processing power, the cloud dynamically adapts to give you those extra resources. I'd say it's not where it needs to be yet - not least because it's not PCI compliant - but I would be very surprised if it is not an integral part of the way we use the Internet in the next two years. Certainly at Meantime we will be migrating some simpler sites onto the cloud this coming year.
In conclusion then, there doesn't seem to be any reduction in the onward momentum around every aspect of the IT industry as we see exciting and innovative developments in hardware, operating systems, infrastructure, applications and communications. As ever, the trick for business is to stay aware of these developments, keep a safe distance from the 'bleeding edge' (neither too close nor too far behind) and to be constantly aware of where these changes can benefit the way in which we all work, considering when they can and should be introduced. One thing that I do anticipate this year for our company is the beginning of requests for iPhone applications for our clients, almost certainly the extension of their extranets out onto the iPhone platform as a means of communicating with the staff, suppliers, clients and customers. And I'm very excited about that!
Thursday 31 December 2009
Tuesday 29 December 2009
You can have what you want but only if you ask for it.
Sometimes when I'm about to start writing a post, I think to myself that I can't write about something so obvious but then I usually consider the incident that has prompted the post and realise that, especially when it comes to IT, there's a lot of truth in the old adage that there's nothing common about common sense.
In this particular case, I was talking to an acquaintance who has a friend - let's call her Julie - who works for a well known IT provider. Julie's job is to sort out what this provider is going to deliver after a contract has been signed. In this particular case, the company for whom she works has just signed a huge contract with a well known mobile 'phone company. A project has been determined, a cost agreed, a contract signed and now Julie has to work out what actually will be delivered as part of that deal.
Putting this into a household context highlights the absurdity of the situation. Let's say you decide to have your kitchen refurbished. Uncertain of exactly what it is you're buying, you might decide to engage a large, nationally known company to come and measure up with a view to doing the work. A representative turns up at your house, you say to him "I'd like a new kitchen, please". You'd certainly expect him to take a look at your kitchen and maybe even ask you for a few ideas about what you want.
At that point, would you sign a contract and agree to hand over your money upon completion? Of course not. You'd want to see some designs, talk about materials and colour schemes, perhaps look at the prices the company was going to charge for your appliances.
So why is business so very different? Well, to be fair, it isn't always. We do find that with a lot of SMEs, particularly those owned by one person or a small group of people, a great deal of care is taken to understand where the money will be spent. But as a simple rule of thumb, we find the larger the business, the less detail we are asked to provide.
However, whilst a relaxed attitude such as this might seem like an opportunity to get away with being a little less diligent, we like to be absolutely sure what it is that we are being asked to deliver. There must be a specification of some sort. Even, for a small job, say a text change on a website, where the request might take the form of a 'phone call, we will still follow up with an email to confirm what we are proposing to do. But for a job that is going to cost tens of thousands of pounds surely it makes absolute sense for both sides to have a clear specification?
There are a couple of principle reasons, in my experience, why this doesn't happen. (Three, if you count sheer negligence.)
Firstly, the client doesn't understand what they are buying. This is a very legitimate problem. As I have mentioned before in my postings, people are usually pretty good at buying something they can understand, business cards or brochures, for example. Buying a website and, particularly, software is very different. For example, two years ago we put a site live for a new client. It was a fairly straightforward build job and it had passed through UAT and been signed off by the client without incident. So I was surprised when the client rang with a complaint: they had looked on Google and they couldn't find the site. Now I was able to explain that Google and other search engines don't work instantaneously but there was no reason for the client to know that. This isn't a great example because it would have been hard to trap this expectation at any point in the development but it does highlight the fact that you have to work hard to anticipate and manage your client's expectations.
The other problem is when the client doesn't have the time or inclination to get into the detail of the work. A very good example of this is when a client wants a bespoke e-commerce site. During my initial conversations with them, they will often say something along the lines of "we both know what we're talking about: just an e-commerce site". However, when the site is delivered and suddenly it does get some attention, you can find that what the client was talking about was Amazon.
As a footnote to the examples above, this leaves negligence. There used to be a saying that "no one ever got sacked for buying IBM". The implication there being that if you hire a big 'name' company, no one can blame you if the deliverable isn't up to scratch.
So, the bottom line here is that a decent specification protects both sides in the business relationship. As a provider, we know exactly what we're committed to delivering and the client knows what they are buying. This enables us to quote price and time-scales accurately: in fact, I don't know how we would stick to our promise to deliver on time and on budget if we didn't do this.
For larger jobs, we may even charge for the preparation of the specification. This is not always an easy sell but in addition to protecting both parties once it comes to development, it also means we have the time to do really detailed design and analysis. Furthermore, the client can use the specification as a tender document to get the best price for development. I'm pleased to say that, so far, the development work has always come back to us but with the specification done properly, this is not a done deal.
In this particular case, I was talking to an acquaintance who has a friend - let's call her Julie - who works for a well known IT provider. Julie's job is to sort out what this provider is going to deliver after a contract has been signed. In this particular case, the company for whom she works has just signed a huge contract with a well known mobile 'phone company. A project has been determined, a cost agreed, a contract signed and now Julie has to work out what actually will be delivered as part of that deal.
Putting this into a household context highlights the absurdity of the situation. Let's say you decide to have your kitchen refurbished. Uncertain of exactly what it is you're buying, you might decide to engage a large, nationally known company to come and measure up with a view to doing the work. A representative turns up at your house, you say to him "I'd like a new kitchen, please". You'd certainly expect him to take a look at your kitchen and maybe even ask you for a few ideas about what you want.
At that point, would you sign a contract and agree to hand over your money upon completion? Of course not. You'd want to see some designs, talk about materials and colour schemes, perhaps look at the prices the company was going to charge for your appliances.
So why is business so very different? Well, to be fair, it isn't always. We do find that with a lot of SMEs, particularly those owned by one person or a small group of people, a great deal of care is taken to understand where the money will be spent. But as a simple rule of thumb, we find the larger the business, the less detail we are asked to provide.
However, whilst a relaxed attitude such as this might seem like an opportunity to get away with being a little less diligent, we like to be absolutely sure what it is that we are being asked to deliver. There must be a specification of some sort. Even, for a small job, say a text change on a website, where the request might take the form of a 'phone call, we will still follow up with an email to confirm what we are proposing to do. But for a job that is going to cost tens of thousands of pounds surely it makes absolute sense for both sides to have a clear specification?
There are a couple of principle reasons, in my experience, why this doesn't happen. (Three, if you count sheer negligence.)
Firstly, the client doesn't understand what they are buying. This is a very legitimate problem. As I have mentioned before in my postings, people are usually pretty good at buying something they can understand, business cards or brochures, for example. Buying a website and, particularly, software is very different. For example, two years ago we put a site live for a new client. It was a fairly straightforward build job and it had passed through UAT and been signed off by the client without incident. So I was surprised when the client rang with a complaint: they had looked on Google and they couldn't find the site. Now I was able to explain that Google and other search engines don't work instantaneously but there was no reason for the client to know that. This isn't a great example because it would have been hard to trap this expectation at any point in the development but it does highlight the fact that you have to work hard to anticipate and manage your client's expectations.
The other problem is when the client doesn't have the time or inclination to get into the detail of the work. A very good example of this is when a client wants a bespoke e-commerce site. During my initial conversations with them, they will often say something along the lines of "we both know what we're talking about: just an e-commerce site". However, when the site is delivered and suddenly it does get some attention, you can find that what the client was talking about was Amazon.
As a footnote to the examples above, this leaves negligence. There used to be a saying that "no one ever got sacked for buying IBM". The implication there being that if you hire a big 'name' company, no one can blame you if the deliverable isn't up to scratch.
So, the bottom line here is that a decent specification protects both sides in the business relationship. As a provider, we know exactly what we're committed to delivering and the client knows what they are buying. This enables us to quote price and time-scales accurately: in fact, I don't know how we would stick to our promise to deliver on time and on budget if we didn't do this.
For larger jobs, we may even charge for the preparation of the specification. This is not always an easy sell but in addition to protecting both parties once it comes to development, it also means we have the time to do really detailed design and analysis. Furthermore, the client can use the specification as a tender document to get the best price for development. I'm pleased to say that, so far, the development work has always come back to us but with the specification done properly, this is not a done deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)