You are currently browsing the monthly archive for June 2012.

If you are working in another context and have been considering out of personal interest or necessity joining “the Enterprise,” here are a few things you should know:

(1) The enterprise is about meeting people’s needs as they already exist

Generally speaking, you don’t do any true B2C stuff in the enterprise, it is all B2B and built on top of existing products and stacks, so your chance to start something “from scratch” is virtually nil. Don’t try. No one cares. This generally also means heaps of integration with existing business processes, software products, etc.

(2) Your users are not you

I’ve seen this problem come up a number of times, but most of the time the people using the product you will be building are very different from you and have a very different set of problems. You either need to understand these problems yourself or get used to working with someone who does.

(3) The enterprise is about money

Money is needed to live and is, generally speaking, the standard by which everything is measured in the enterprise. And by everything, I mean everything. Your cool widget isn’t worth anything to anybody unless it makes someone money. There is a certain reasonably large amount of bullshit eliminated this way.

(3) The enterprise has money

You don’t have to worry (or at least you have to worry less) about people with their latest greatest idea wanting you to implement their idea for time with their cat. I like cats, but I also like to get paid. This is one of the main reasons why people end up in the enterprise.

(4) Your tools are what you are given

Since you are working on top of someone else’s stack, generally you are stuck with whatever they provide. This can really suck. Unfortunately, due to No. 3, probably no one cares much about creating new tools for you to work with, since this costs them time and they can’t figure out why they should give you anything more than you need.

(5) You will be forced to drink kool-aid

Marketing, frequently involving technologies which are poorly-defined and do not exist, is the lifeblood of “innovation” in the enterprise. Generally speaking, this involves putting a vague concept out there and contrasting your awesome vague concept with the “conservative” parties that are just selling the same old sauce instead of your new sauce. The implication of this, is that if you are in the periphery, you are more or less forced to become a cheerleader. Although waving pom-poms can be nice (well, depends on who is doing this, do not click on this link), it can go to your head. Generally speaking, this sluicy juice does make people a bit crazy, so you have to watch out.

Generally speaking, you should be aware of all of these things before starting. The enterprise can introduce you to a lot of people with interesting needs in a variety of industry sectors (I’ve been fortunate to work with a number of very large and interesting corporations) without a lot of bullshit you might deal with if you are limited to small and mid-size companies and deals. The unfortunate consequence is that you will probably move far away from B2C solutions, which can be a better way to improve your skills as in many circumstances you are forced to be much more competitive when working on a product which, generally speaking, must iterate much more rapidly.

In the end, if you stay in the enterprise with the attempt to be as “good” as you can, you will probably become awesome at doing a lot of things quickly, but will probably stop doing them all that well (the incentive structure generally emphasizes quantity of features but less frequently quality of experience, something which generally means that you need to care about your customers).

As goes a famous phrase of T.S. Eliot, “Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” And with the information age, we are overloaded. Whether or not we belong to the enterprise, we are likely swimming in information with the generally implied idea that we must have a response to it.

Moreover, even if we explicitly resist the clinging and clanging of the newest generation of digital beeps indicating new information that is available, we are likely to be drawn in or part of a digital resistance, which angrily decries all the new modes of information sharing.

Indeed, there is a logic to this. Very little information of the vast amount of new information available is valuable in and of itself. Some of this may be valuable in aggregate — I can find out, for instance, how many people talked about Justin Bieber this week on Twitter and how this corresponds to the number of people talking about any other pop artist. Other information is completely useless.

What are, however, the exceptions? As I see them, there are several “new” things emerging in this wave of technology:

(1) Extensibility
- I can reach people that I never could reach before. If I met someone once in China with a specific knowledge of acupuncture points on the foot, I can now easily reach out to him five years later when I have a specific question about foot massage. This is amazing and allows for greater hyper-specialization (by, among other things, empowering generalists at the same time)

(2) Connectivity
– I feel, or can feel, connected to people far away that previously I felt distant. This is particularly important within the sphere of work, in which more and more people work remotely. I can be working “with” people everywhere and their little personal things, as insignificant as they can be, can give me the feel of a virtual office (even, at times, a virtual cubicle!).

(3) Breaking news
– In certain sectors, including technology, getting the information while it is hot and being part of the “breaking wave” can give one new energy — a bit like surfing. If you are on the beach, it just isn’t going to be exciting for you or anyone else watching you. And, with each new wave, you can “surf” everywhere.

(4) Flattened world
- In many respects, I disagree with folks like Thomas Friedman that describe a flat world as a good thing — but in some instances it can be very good. These mediums often allow us to reach across barriers for causes good or bad — increasing the accountability of political figures and companies.

If there is a good, of course there is a bad. One needs to be aggressive in filtering information that might be useful and removing completely useless sources of information.

Here are some evaluations:

(1) Twitter -> Hit or miss. If I am plugged in all day I catch everything. If I unplug, I only get little bits. I wish I had a better filter.
(2) Facebook -> I aggressively “hide” people not in my immediate vicinity or with whom I am not working. I get value from finding about things from people/orgs I watch, as the signal to noise ratio remains reasonably high.
(3) Hacker News -> I created a filter for Hacker News since it was as bit like Twitter for me.
(4) RSS -> I have almost abandoned RSS.
(5) Email -> I have 50+ filters setup in Gmail and probably that number of folders and subfolders. This remains my primary “feed.” I actually think Facebook could replace this, largely because there are a lot of things missing in email protocols that they can build into Facebook messages (e.g. the “read” notification). This would be a huge win for Facebook, since although within messaging right now they are doing a good job with convenience, if they actually had a superior technology set they could make a good show of replacing email altogether (this was, in part, part of the goal of Google Wave).

If you are interested in more, here’s a related Hacker News thread.

P.S. It is clear that Salesforce, Yammer, etc. are following rather than leading the “Facebooks” of the world, so I don’t think it makes sense to focus on them in particular.

@fractastical updates

June 2012
M T W T F S S
« May   Aug »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 951 other followers