Forrester Blogs For Technology Industry Professionals
This is a roll-up of all Forrester blogs written for Technology Industry Professionals. Role-specific blogs are listed below. Visit Forrester.com to learn how we make Technology Industry Professionals successful every day.
On Monday, June 7th, AT&T will introduce two new smartphone data plans, which will replace the current $30/month unlimited data plan offer and will make smartphone data packages affordable to more customers. The DataPlus package does, indeed, lower the entry-level price for smartphone users. The DataPlus package costs $15 per month for 200 megabytes of data, with the option of purchasing an additional 200 megabytes of data for $15. Customers who are heavy data users can purchase the DataPro plan, which is a 2-gigabyte package for $25 per month. If customers go over this limit, an additional gigabyte of data costs $10. DataPro customers can also use their mobile devices as wireless modems to connect other devices (e.g., laptops) to the network for an additional $20 per month.
The net-net of these new packages is that customers using the DataPlus plan get a voice and data plan for $55 per month and customers on the DataPro plan pay $65 per month, compared with the current price of $70 per month. These price cuts will benefit the increasing number of employees who are responsible for paying for their own voice and data plans. Results from Forrester’s 2010 Enterprise And SMB Networks And Telecommunications Survey show that approximately 30% of over 1,000 surveyed enterprises have already cut the number of employees who qualify for corporate-liable mobile data and voice services, and 17% plan to cut the number of employees on corporate-liable voice and data services this year.
In the technology industry, there has been a rising chorus of questions about the role of the executive in Agile adoption. The recent acceleration of Agile adoption has a lot to do with the frequency of the question. Here's the other reason: Agile has been around long enough for a collective contemplation of lessons learned. In the after action reports about Agile implementations, executives regularly appear as major characters.
Given the ripple effects of Agile adoption throughout a technology company, it would have been surprising indeed if executives had played only a minor role. When the development team changes when and how it delivers new technology, everyone (Sales, Marketing, Support, Consulting, etc.) is affected in some way. With Agile adoption, executives who are already trying to bring departments into greater alignment face another potential source of misalignment. At the same time, as Forrester's research into Agile adoption in the tech industry shows, executives are less able to influence the priorities and activities in Development. If the executives don't really understand Agile, or haven't invested much in making this profound transformation work, an avalanche of backlash from the upper regions of the org chart is the usual result.
The choice between different formats of cloud computing (IaaS, SaaS mostly) and their comparison to internal IT business service deployment must be based on objective criteria. But this is mostly uncharted territory in IT. Many organizations have difficulties implementing a realistic chargeback solution, and the real cost of business services is often an elusive target. We all agree that IT needs a better form of financial management, even though 80% of organizations will consider it primarily as a means for understanding where to cut costs rather than a strategy to drive a better IT organization.
Financial management will help IT understand better its cost structure in all dimensions, but this is not enough to make an informed choice between a business service internal or external deployment. I think that the problem of which deployment model to choose from requires a new methodology that will get data from financial management. As I often do, I turned to manufacturing to see how they deal with this type of analysis and cost optimization. The starting point is of course an architectural model of the “product”, and this effectively shows how valuable these models are in IT. The two types of analysis, FAST (Function Analysis System Technique) and QFD (Quality Function Deployment), combine into a “Value Analysis Matrix” that lists the customer requirements against the way these requirements are answered by the “product” (or business service) components. Each of these components has a weight (derived from its correlation with the customer requirements) and a cost associated to it. Analyzing several models (for example a SaaS model against an internal deployment) would lead to not only an informed decision but also would open the door to an optimization of the service cost.
I think that such a methodology would complement a financial management product and help IT become more efficient.
If you're still baffled, flummoxed, or concerned about Facebook's now-infamous privacy policies, here's a handy chart from The New York Times. (Thanks, Madiha, for the pointer.) While the diagram retains a neutral tone, it's hard to read the phrase 50 settings with over 170 options without having a "What the hell?!?" moment.
In defense of Facebook, they're no worse than many technology companies that devise confusing UIs, full of knobs and dials that users don't understand or use. These companies are still to blame for creating the circumstances in which a confusing UI is hard to avoid, so they're not completely blameless.
An apology to future generations
Here's where we venture into the idiosyncratic sub-culture of the tech industry, which is hard to understand if you've never been part of it. In spite of having big development budgets, a staff of seasoned professionals, and months to build a useful product, tech companies repeatedly build software that begs the question, "Daddy, why is your product so hard to use?" (Even weirder: usability is often inversely proportional to the price.)
The always incisive and effervescent April Dunford has a great post at her blog Rocket Watcher about the reasons why your start-up needs a website, before you have a product to talk about. I couldn't agree more, for the following reasons:
Customers are buying your business model, not just your product. Your product is one source of value to potential customers, but not the only one. A good case in point: the many SaaS start-ups that attracted a lot of initial attention, then quickly lost their users to competitive products. If there's more to keeping your customers than just the product, you'd better start communicating those other sources of value.
You need the opportunity to test your marketing. You won't get the communication right the first time, so market testing before the moment when you release the product is critical. Who wants to slave over a great new invention, only to discover that your marketing sucks?
You need early product feedback. All new products are based on a set of assumptions, some of which will be wrong. You can use your website to understand your potential customers better through the website. If there's something wrong with your personas, use cases, or any other guiding principles of prioritization and design, identify the problems now, unless you really enjoy re-engineering.
[More in a series of posts inspired by the "PM in an on-demand world" research that I've been doing. Here's the link to yesterday's thought du jour.]
During the research interviews about PM and SaaS, I was struck by how philosophical the conversations got. To the interviewees, SaaS was not merely a delivery vehicle, but a fundamental decision about their business. Bringing technology producers and consumers closer together forced many vendors to admit that they had a vague, incomplete idea of who adopts their products and services, why they do it, and how they do it. The subscription model led to many hard questions about how the company makes money. Marketers had to deal with a significantly modified value proposition, while simultaneously knocking down some new potential objections (most notably, security).
But those are just the most obvious consequences. The deeper we got into the research, the more I felt that we were talking about other ripple effects of SaaS, PaaS, and the other aaSes. At least a couple of Big Industry Trends – the kind that Very Serious People spend a great deal of time talking about – owe a great deal to SaaS. Without the success of SaaS, many organizations would not have been as open to embracing other changes. I'll mention just two of them, Agile and social media, among several that we'll discuss in the final report.
As promised, still more SaaS! Following an excellent day of discussion about PM in an on-demand world, I started over here at the fresh-out-of-the-shrinkwrap Forrester community site. Topic: On demand is a business model choice, not just a delivery mechanism. Discuss.
I'm working on a report about the role of PM in an on demand setting (SaaS, PaaS, and all the other aaSes). As often happens in discussions about PM, the role is a window into many bigger issues. Since their responsibilities span both business and technology, product managers and product marketers find themselves in the middle of many fundamental questions for technology vendors, such as, How often should we deliver something new to our customers?
That question has two sides: (1) how often do customers want to receive something new, and (2) how often can the vendor deliver it. Both questions can be difficult to answer. Customers often want tech vendors to deliver value faster, but they also complain if the changes happen too fast. Vendors know that they could deliver new technology every time they do a build, but they also know that the entire company (sales, marketing, support, etc.) won't be able to keep up at that pace. There must be some golden mean between the pace of technology production and consumption, but what is it?
By shortening the distance between producers and consumers, on demand, and SaaS in particular, has made it easier to reach a meaningful answer. The on-premise model creates a very long value stream between the development team at the beginning of the technology adoption process, and the users at the very end. In fact, adoption is, at best, a blurry image on the distant horizon of the development team's field of vision. Since the success of a development team's work products depend on its adoption, lack of information about adoption is not an information gap, but a yawning chasm.
The Dell Streak launches this morning in the UK at O2 and Carphone Warehouse. Dell calls the Streak a 5” tablet – I see a slightly larger touchscreen smartphone that I hope will be ideal for collaboration tasks. While I have not performed a hands-on test, I did talk with Neeraj Choubey, general manager of tablets in Dell's Communications Solutions Group.
What does the Streak have? A 5” screen displays navigation, browser, and social networking. In addition to connectivity via Wi-Fi, 3G, and Bluetooth, the Streak boasts two cameras – a 5 megapixel camera on the back for taking pictures with the dual LED flash and a backward-facing VGA camera for videoconferencing. All this runs on Qualcomm's Snapdragon chipset and Google Android operating system.
In today’s mobile world, information workers attend one or more meetings every day, and almost a third of their team members are not collocated with them (Ted Schadler writes about this in his report, “A Day In The Life Of A US Information Worker”). They are also out of the office more and more frequently – more than a third of information workers are out of the office regularly. This calls for solutions and devices that enable these mobile workers to communicate and collaborate – and the Streak fits nicely into market whitespace to fill this need.