Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco. I put together a new presentation covering our recent on-site meeting technology experiences with the National FFA Organization and Northwestern Mutual.
On-Site Meeting Technology Presentation Slides
Thursday, August 28, 2008
On-Site Meeting Technology
Thanks to Cheryl Smith I had a last-minute opportunity to speak at the California CPA Education Foundation's Western States CPE Conference on Thursday, August 21, 2008 at the
Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco. I put together a new presentation covering our recent on-site meeting technology experiences with the National FFA Organization and Northwestern Mutual.
On-Site Meeting Technology Presentation Slides
Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco. I put together a new presentation covering our recent on-site meeting technology experiences with the National FFA Organization and Northwestern Mutual.
On-Site Meeting Technology Presentation Slides
Friday, July 25, 2008
Custom Development Visualized
I haven't posted in a while due to two big customer projects that have absorbed my time. Although both went well in the end, anyone who has worked on software projects from start to finish will appreciate this cartoon, which has been passed around so much I don't know who to give credit to for it.
(Click on the image to view it larger.)
Another day I'll write several pages about the process of developing specific features for one client within a Web application, but I'll leave it at this for now.
(Click on the image to view it larger.)
Another day I'll write several pages about the process of developing specific features for one client within a Web application, but I'll leave it at this for now.
Web 2.0 by Tim O'Reilly
Thanks to Nina Govan for sending me an excellent article from Tim O'Reilly in 2005, "What is Web 2.0?" The term is so over-used that I had forgotten that it was created as a well-considered definition of the post-dot-com era. If you don't have time to read 5 pages, here are two parts that really stuck out in my mind.
Netscape vs. Google
Quoting from O'Reilly:
"If Netscape was the standard bearer for Web 1.0, Google is most certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0, if only because their respective IPOs were defining events for each era. So let's start with a comparison of these two companies and their positioning.
Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage" framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.
In the end, both web browsers and web servers turned out to be commodities, and value moved "up the stack" to services delivered over the web platform.
Google, by contrast, began its life as a native web application, never sold or packaged, but delivered as a service, with customers paying, directly or indirectly, for the use of that service. None of the trappings of the old software industry are present. No scheduled software releases, just continuous improvement. No licensing or sale, just usage. No porting to different platforms so that customers can run the software on their own equipment, just a massively scalable collection of commodity PCs running open source operating systems plus homegrown applications and utilities that no one outside the company ever gets to see."
Who owns the data?
Again from O'Reilly, page 3:
"In the internet era, one can already see a number of cases where control over the database has led to market control and outsized financial returns. The monopoly on domain name registry initially granted by government fiat to Network Solutions (later purchased by Verisign) was one of the first great moneymakers of the internet. While we've argued that business advantage via controlling software APIs is much more difficult in the age of the internet, control of key data sources is not, especially if those data sources are expensive to create or amenable to increasing returns via network effects.
Look at the copyright notices at the base of every map served by MapQuest, maps.yahoo.com, maps.msn.com, or maps.google.com, and you'll see the line "Maps copyright NavTeq, TeleAtlas," or with the new satellite imagery services, "Images copyright Digital Globe." These companies made substantial investments in their databases (NavTeq alone reportedly invested $750 million to build their database of street addresses and directions. Digital Globe spent $500 million to launch their own satellite to improve on government-supplied imagery.) NavTeq has gone so far as to imitate Intel's familiar Intel Inside logo: Cars with navigation systems bear the imprint, "NavTeq Onboard." Data is indeed the Intel Inside of these applications, a sole source component in systems whose software infrastructure is largely open source or otherwise commodified.
The now hotly contested web mapping arena demonstrates how a failure to understand the importance of owning an application's core data will eventually undercut its competitive position. MapQuest pioneered the web mapping category in 1995, yet when Yahoo!, and then Microsoft, and most recently Google, decided to enter the market, they were easily able to offer a competing application simply by licensing the same data.
Contrast, however, the position of Amazon.com. Like competitors such as Barnesandnoble.com, its original database came from ISBN registry provider R.R. Bowker. But unlike MapQuest, Amazon relentlessly enhanced the data, adding publisher-supplied data such as cover images, table of contents, index, and sample material. Even more importantly, they harnessed their users to annotate the data, such that after ten years, Amazon, not Bowker, is the primary source for bibliographic data on books, a reference source for scholars and librarians as well as consumers. Amazon also introduced their own proprietary identifier, the ASIN, which corresponds to the ISBN where one is present, and creates an equivalent namespace for products without one. Effectively, Amazon "embraced and extended" their data suppliers.
Imagine if MapQuest had done the same thing, harnessing their users to annotate maps and directions, adding layers of value. It would have been much more difficult for competitors to enter the market just by licensing the base data."
Netscape vs. Google
Quoting from O'Reilly:
"If Netscape was the standard bearer for Web 1.0, Google is most certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0, if only because their respective IPOs were defining events for each era. So let's start with a comparison of these two companies and their positioning.
Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage" framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.
In the end, both web browsers and web servers turned out to be commodities, and value moved "up the stack" to services delivered over the web platform.
Google, by contrast, began its life as a native web application, never sold or packaged, but delivered as a service, with customers paying, directly or indirectly, for the use of that service. None of the trappings of the old software industry are present. No scheduled software releases, just continuous improvement. No licensing or sale, just usage. No porting to different platforms so that customers can run the software on their own equipment, just a massively scalable collection of commodity PCs running open source operating systems plus homegrown applications and utilities that no one outside the company ever gets to see."
Who owns the data?
Again from O'Reilly, page 3:
"In the internet era, one can already see a number of cases where control over the database has led to market control and outsized financial returns. The monopoly on domain name registry initially granted by government fiat to Network Solutions (later purchased by Verisign) was one of the first great moneymakers of the internet. While we've argued that business advantage via controlling software APIs is much more difficult in the age of the internet, control of key data sources is not, especially if those data sources are expensive to create or amenable to increasing returns via network effects.
Look at the copyright notices at the base of every map served by MapQuest, maps.yahoo.com, maps.msn.com, or maps.google.com, and you'll see the line "Maps copyright NavTeq, TeleAtlas," or with the new satellite imagery services, "Images copyright Digital Globe." These companies made substantial investments in their databases (NavTeq alone reportedly invested $750 million to build their database of street addresses and directions. Digital Globe spent $500 million to launch their own satellite to improve on government-supplied imagery.) NavTeq has gone so far as to imitate Intel's familiar Intel Inside logo: Cars with navigation systems bear the imprint, "NavTeq Onboard." Data is indeed the Intel Inside of these applications, a sole source component in systems whose software infrastructure is largely open source or otherwise commodified.
The now hotly contested web mapping arena demonstrates how a failure to understand the importance of owning an application's core data will eventually undercut its competitive position. MapQuest pioneered the web mapping category in 1995, yet when Yahoo!, and then Microsoft, and most recently Google, decided to enter the market, they were easily able to offer a competing application simply by licensing the same data.
Contrast, however, the position of Amazon.com. Like competitors such as Barnesandnoble.com, its original database came from ISBN registry provider R.R. Bowker. But unlike MapQuest, Amazon relentlessly enhanced the data, adding publisher-supplied data such as cover images, table of contents, index, and sample material. Even more importantly, they harnessed their users to annotate the data, such that after ten years, Amazon, not Bowker, is the primary source for bibliographic data on books, a reference source for scholars and librarians as well as consumers. Amazon also introduced their own proprietary identifier, the ASIN, which corresponds to the ISBN where one is present, and creates an equivalent namespace for products without one. Effectively, Amazon "embraced and extended" their data suppliers.
Imagine if MapQuest had done the same thing, harnessing their users to annotate maps and directions, adding layers of value. It would have been much more difficult for competitors to enter the market just by licensing the base data."
Friday, April 25, 2008
The tools of customer care in a Web-based business
Ryan Manville pointed me to a form-builder application called Wufoo. The application is great for simple forms – but check out the "Welcome" email they sent me when I created a free account. It is like a checklist of the tools that you need to run a modern Web-based business.
Compared to this checklist, how are we doing at Certain Software?
Compared to this checklist, how are we doing at Certain Software?
- Account Information: YES – We can give you a dedicated URL for your account
- Documentation: YES – We have documentation and a Knowledge Base, but only accessible to customers
- Blog: KIND OF – We recently opened a company blog, but don’t yet have any posts about development or upcoming releases
- Feedback: YES – We have a general inbox for customer comments
- Forums: NO – We are currently investigating a Forum application, but we haven’t published one yet
- Founders Blog: YES – We have one founder Blog, but it would be nice to have a couple more.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The New Global Certain Software
On March 4, 2008, Certain Software and Amlink Technologies announced a merger to create "the largest global supplier of technology solutions for the meetings and events management industry". The adjective "largest" comes courtesy of the fact that we can chose the metrics to measure by. I count this as the fourth announcement in the past year of the creation of the "largest global supplier" among meeting software vendors (Starcite, Active Network, Cvent, and now Certain). I've personally never put much stock in the claim of being the biggest; to me it is more important to be the best solution provider for each invidual customer.
It's like that Bank of America commercial says, "Our goal isn't to process a billion transactions each day; our goal is to process one transaction correctly, and then repeat that a billion times."
How does it help me for you to be the "Largest"?
As a customer, I would think, "This merger is great for you. I'm sure some people earned a well-deserved payout and you'll be able to consolidate some back-office functions. But what's it going to do for me? Will you stop developing the product I use now and force me to switch to another one, which I probably didn't choose for specific reasons when I purchased your product? Am I going to call my account manager of five years and get a nameless call center technician half-way around the world?"
This is a challenge for us. At our first merger transition meeting, we established four goals for our quest to be recognized as THE global technology solution for the Events and Meeting Planning Industry.
But we do want customers to notice benefits in their service soon, so one of our objectives is to work toward a 24/7/365 support network of internal experts - not outsourced call center techs. With primary offices in San Francisco, Seattle, Brisbane (Australia), and London, we have permanent employees in native English-speaking countries located in time zones spaced approximately 8 hours apart. (Yes, Perth would have been exactly 8 hours apart, but I guess Trevor Gardiner liked Brisbane better when he established Amlink there.)
Second, although we will continue to develop both the Events Pro and Certain Registration products separately for the rest of 2008, we've already begun to see the excitement generated internally by putting hundreds of years' of global event management software experience into the same room. We hope that customers will be beating down the doors to use our first jointly-developed product, but in the meantime, we won't slow down product support on either of our core platforms.
Don't mergers mean layoffs and product cuts?
I think that most people in our industry look at Starcite as the model for software consolidation, but our situation is very different. Starcite acquired RegWeb because they needed an online registration product, and they continue to support that platform today. B-There came in from bankruptcy, and thus its products and services were in jeopardy whether or not Starcite had completed the acquisition. Starcite and OnVantage merged while OnVantage was still digesting the merger of Plansoft and SeeUThere. By then, Starcite had acquired or built 3 solid registration systems and 2 basic ones, plus 3 meeting expense consolidation tools, two or more hotel databases, and dozens of offices world-wide. It's impractical to expect that they would have continued to support and develop all of those products and employees.
Certain and Amlink, however, were in the position of having both strong products and financial positions. In the past 10 years of selling online registration software, I believe that the two of us were finalists in only one opportunity I worked on (the National FFA Organization, where I missed Trevor by a couple hours). Certain Registration was born as a Web-based Software as a Service (SaaS), while Events Pro is a traditional client-server Windows application. Certain is primarily U.S.-based, while Amlink's largest office is halfway around the world and dominates its chosen niche in Europe. Looking at these facts, it makes more sense to expect growth from this merger than cut-backs.
So what's next?
I'm tackling a new challenge of leading the new Certain's merger transition committee. I have little global business experience, a 4-week old infant at home, and a mile-long list of objectives. But we'll tackle these as a team and make progress each day, and occasionally I'll share some lessons learned here.
Being a big sister is exhausting!
It's like that Bank of America commercial says, "Our goal isn't to process a billion transactions each day; our goal is to process one transaction correctly, and then repeat that a billion times."
How does it help me for you to be the "Largest"?
As a customer, I would think, "This merger is great for you. I'm sure some people earned a well-deserved payout and you'll be able to consolidate some back-office functions. But what's it going to do for me? Will you stop developing the product I use now and force me to switch to another one, which I probably didn't choose for specific reasons when I purchased your product? Am I going to call my account manager of five years and get a nameless call center technician half-way around the world?"
This is a challenge for us. At our first merger transition meeting, we established four goals for our quest to be recognized as THE global technology solution for the Events and Meeting Planning Industry.
- Seamless transition - Achieve transition without disrupting current business operations from the customers' perspective (and from the employees' perspective when possible)
- Global company - Certain is one global company from the market's perspective (customers, prospects, partners, public) and from the employee's perspective (internal operations)
- Increase revenue - We need revenue growth in order to fund the ongoing operations and development required by the market we serve
- Control costs - We plan to increase profitability through higher revenue while controlling costs
But we do want customers to notice benefits in their service soon, so one of our objectives is to work toward a 24/7/365 support network of internal experts - not outsourced call center techs. With primary offices in San Francisco, Seattle, Brisbane (Australia), and London, we have permanent employees in native English-speaking countries located in time zones spaced approximately 8 hours apart. (Yes, Perth would have been exactly 8 hours apart, but I guess Trevor Gardiner liked Brisbane better when he established Amlink there.)
Second, although we will continue to develop both the Events Pro and Certain Registration products separately for the rest of 2008, we've already begun to see the excitement generated internally by putting hundreds of years' of global event management software experience into the same room. We hope that customers will be beating down the doors to use our first jointly-developed product, but in the meantime, we won't slow down product support on either of our core platforms.
Don't mergers mean layoffs and product cuts?
I think that most people in our industry look at Starcite as the model for software consolidation, but our situation is very different. Starcite acquired RegWeb because they needed an online registration product, and they continue to support that platform today. B-There came in from bankruptcy, and thus its products and services were in jeopardy whether or not Starcite had completed the acquisition. Starcite and OnVantage merged while OnVantage was still digesting the merger of Plansoft and SeeUThere. By then, Starcite had acquired or built 3 solid registration systems and 2 basic ones, plus 3 meeting expense consolidation tools, two or more hotel databases, and dozens of offices world-wide. It's impractical to expect that they would have continued to support and develop all of those products and employees.
Certain and Amlink, however, were in the position of having both strong products and financial positions. In the past 10 years of selling online registration software, I believe that the two of us were finalists in only one opportunity I worked on (the National FFA Organization, where I missed Trevor by a couple hours). Certain Registration was born as a Web-based Software as a Service (SaaS), while Events Pro is a traditional client-server Windows application. Certain is primarily U.S.-based, while Amlink's largest office is halfway around the world and dominates its chosen niche in Europe. Looking at these facts, it makes more sense to expect growth from this merger than cut-backs.
So what's next?
I'm tackling a new challenge of leading the new Certain's merger transition committee. I have little global business experience, a 4-week old infant at home, and a mile-long list of objectives. But we'll tackle these as a team and make progress each day, and occasionally I'll share some lessons learned here.
Being a big sister is exhausting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
