Despite the popularity of CRM solutions, business process pros tell us they still struggle with how to define the right customer management strategies, re-engineer customer-facing business processes, and effectively acquire and deploy the right supporting technology solutions that will meet their needs. Looking ahead, what trends will dominate the planning agendas of business and IT professionals responsible for transforming customer-facing business processes in 2011? Here is a summary of the 12 trends and links to our key research reports for those who want to take a deep-dive into the underlying Forrester data and analysis.
Trend 1: The negative revenue impact of poor multichannel customer experience is recognized.
I say "finally" because most of the ideas for these documents were collected during the research Diego Lo Giudice and I did for Forrester's EA Forum 2010, nearly one year ago. If the ideas are quick to come, they sometimes take a long time to be realized in a document! I apologize to the customers who were waiting for the final document.
The goal of this collection of documents is to demonstrate typical EA involvement in IT governances — an area that is usually more or less "beyond" EA's scope. We also said in the EA Forum presentation that these potential involvements are not mandatory and highly depend on your particular EA objectives. EA involvement in IT governance should remain in line with the recommendation we made in Forrester report "Avoid The EA Governance Versus Agility Trap" and in which we still continue to believe: Governance is a lever to obtain nonshared (or even diverging) objectives. When objectives are shared, then governance is not required, and the approach should remain agile.
Pop Quiz: What’s the fastest way to build a credible, enterprise-relevant and highly profitable cloud computing services practice? Buy one that already is. That’s exactly what Verizon did last week when it pushed $1.4B across the table to Terremark. Despite its internal efforts to build an infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) business over the last two years, Verizon simply couldn’t learn the best practices fast enough to have matched the gains in the market it received through this move. Terremark has one of the strongest IaaS hosting businesses in the market and perhaps the best enterprise mix in its customer base of the top tier providers. It also has a significant presence with government clients including the United States’ Government Services Agency (GSA) which has production systems running in a hybrid mode between Terremark’s IaaS and traditional managed hosting services.
Confidential Forrester client inquiries have shown struggles by Verizon to win competitive IaaS bids with its computing-as-a-service (CaaS) offering, often losing to Terremark. This led to Verizon reselling the Terremark solution (its CaaS for SMB) so they could try before the buy.
Social technology is certainly a hot topic, but for many CIOs the emergence of islands of social technology across the enterprise feels like a touch of déjà vu.
IT has been here before, having to clean up islands of automation that left organizations unable to coordinate information and react rapidly to changing market dynamics. Many organizations are already pressing ahead with multiple social media initiatives aimed at solving business or customer challenges — and that's preferable to doing nothing. But should CIOs help their organization step back and take a more strategic perspective on social technologies? By doing so, I believe CIOs can help avoid integration challenges down the road.
I'm suggesting that the more mature organizations (where social technology is well-established) should begin to refocus social technology efforts in support of a broader business strategy. At the same time, IT needs to help ensure the technologies being deployed meet the technology architecture needs of the business of today and tomorrow.
This is the subject of a recent report called "Social Business Strategy." The research takes a strategic look at how organizations are using social technologies and reinforces the suggestion that CEOs need to establish a social business council. We need to think beyond point solutions in order to maximize competitive advantage.
If you are interested in learning more about how to apply social technologies for competitive advantage check out the new Social Business Strategy workshop.
What do you think? Does your organization have a social business council? Do you see one in your future?
Almost every day I get the question: “We want to replace our ITSM support tool; which vendor should I look at?” There are many alternatives today and each vendor has certainly done a great amount of work to position themselves as the best. The success I had in consulting with these clients, and the knowledge I carry with me now, is thanks in part to the clients with whom I have discussed the ITSM space. They have all confirmed that the functionality across these vendors is very similar. This, however, does not help in decision-making — so I’m especially excited to have authored a three-piece research document which might take some magic out of the decision process when selecting ITSM support tools in the future.
Social networking is hot, and it’s smart to think about how your organization might use it to generate benefit equal to the market hype. As you develop your social technology strategy, it’s particularly important to steer clear of a fallacy of thought that often creeps into technology strategies for enterprise communication and collaboration.
Oftentimes, an enterprise social strategy, like enterprise collaboration strategies before them, will have among its goals a phrase suggesting that the technology should “change the way people communicate.” Superficially, this phrase may accurately describe part of the effect, but at a more fundamental level, it violates a very important change management principle. To make my point, I’ll back up and start with a little history.
I used to communicate via paper memos and phone calls, but it was cumbersome and time-consuming. Email has come to replace much of that. So, the “way I communicate” has changed, right? On the face of it, yes, but, looking more closely, not really, at least not at first. Compared to my “before email” days, I still communicate the same types of things with the same kinds of people — only email made these communications easier (for the most part). I started using email because (1) it could improve the existing way I communicated and (2) it fit my work and life context — it was just a new program to use on my handy desktop PC. Once email became part of my context, I realized that I could use it for communications that were too costly before. At this point, it did, to a degree, change the way I communicate.
Last week, Forrester gathered its 1,200 worldwide employees together for an offsite meeting in Boston to kick off our agenda and plans for 2011 and beyond. It was the first time we had gotten the whole company together under one roof in 4 years; the company has grown by roughly 50 percent since the beginning of 2007.
Part of our offsite was devoted to research agenda planning around the big themes that we have identified for the technology industry in the coming year. And we have quite a strong research agenda in the sustainability arena, focusing on how large companies are using IT systems, software, and services to help meet their sustainability goals.
Our research agenda starts with our big-picture point of view on the state of the technology industry. And that is a good place to be! The global technology industry is at the beginning of a multi-year up-cycle of industry innovation and growth, during which investment in tech products and services will grow considerably faster than the overall economy. This was true in 2010 and will again hold true in 2011 and 2012 (see Figure 1).
There are blog posts that you can write without doing any prior work (he says, looking meaningfully at himself in the mirror), and then there are blog posts that require real work. This very interesting post about how the Facebook development organization operates is in the latter category. Instead of pointlessly summarizing the author's findings, compiled from sources who know Facebook from the inside, I'll add a few reactions:
If, as reported, the development team comprises about a quarter of the company's employees (and operations another quarter), that's an unusually high ratio for any tech vendor, whether or not it's in the software-as-a-service (SaaS) business. At salesforce.com, R&D comprises 15% of the company, which is high for the tech industry. Facebook's 25% R&D is staggeringly high.
Even though Facebook regularly confuses the heck out of the people with changes to security features, the company does pilot features before shipping them.
Facebook developers bear a lot of responsibility for their own code, across many dimensions of quality (design, testing, justification, etc.).
The ops team has a more gradual approach to deploying new code than it might appear.
Sorry, this will be a quick one so I don't have time to build in an Animal House reference. I've been following all of the "expert" commentary on Twitter about Tibco's Tibbr announcement. At first glance, Tibbr appears to be another entrant in a crowded space that includes Yammer, SocialText, Salesforce (sorry again, a quick one so I don't have time for what deserves to be a very long list, you get the idea).
Tibbr is not a me-too entrant in this space. Tibbr leverages Tibco's unique position to drive highly relevant information into an incredibly compelling new knowledge worker experience. The link between critical line of business data and the average knowledge worker in an enterprise has long been more tenuous and less effective than it should be. Tibco has an investment in enterprise application integration that might astound the uninitiated. So here is an example of how an internal microblog/activity stream might look in a Tibbr-enabled world:
"Joey's Diner has the best clams casino. I can't get enough of them." — Get over yourself, no one cares what you're eating. And by the way, your self-indulgence is creating noise that is blocking critical signal.
"The Knack are back. Great concert last night at the Konocti Harbor Inn." —See above, you get the idea.
"I'm working on a huge proposal for a key client, has anyone done a big deal with legal" — Great, now we're getting somewhere.
"Inventory levels of widgets are critically low in Kansas City store" — Holy mackerel, that's important. Thanks, Tibco, for making a massive investment in building integration to my inventory system.
This week we published the first in a series of reports I'll be writing to help clients calculate the return on investment of GRC technologies. This report, How To Measure The ROI Of A GRC Platform, outlines the key factors and suggested metrics to show what GRC can do for your organization.
Of course, my first recommendation is to exhaust your arsenal of arguments before falling back into ROI terrain. GRC is about improving oversight, strengthening controls, and finding ways for the business to succeed within the boundaries of risk tolerance. But these board-level issues can quickly give way to questions of costs and savings... so it's good to be prepared.
The considerations for costs (software, hardware, maintenance, implementation, etc.) are not much different than other large IT projects, nor are the associated risks (requirements, scope, adoption, integration, etc.). What's tough is articulating the benefits. The report offers much more detail, but generally the success factors of a GRC implementation fall into three categories. These are:
Efficiency, which includes product and process consolidation as well as facilitation of processes such as policy development and distribution, risk and control assessments, incident/issue management, data/report aggregation.
Risk reduction, which includes decreases in audit and examination findings, reduction in regulatory fines, faster remediation of issues, and the secondary benefits of these improvements, such as deceased cost of capital and lower insurance costs.