"They Speak"

This Great Country

Only here, in America, can we create the kind of wealth and opportunities, particularly in tech, and at the same time make fun of ourselves (see Bubble 2.0).  I hope we never lose the opportunity OR the sense of humor.  The irony in the choice of media to deliver this message isn't lost either! (Thanks for the link Patti)

Defrag Highlight (for me)

Over the past two days in Denver at Defrag, the most compelling presentation (in my mind) was delivered this morning by Andrew McAfee, in the morning keynote.  Ross Mayfield (congrats Ross on the new funding and CEO 2.0) gives a great account of the presentation.  However, it was one particular item he discussed that was a hidden gem.

In his presentation, Andrew talked about the need (maybe) to articulate an ROI for bringing Web 2.0 tools to the enterprise.  Andrew's comment was that "CIO's are getting tired of looking at the 300% ROI on the bottom of each proposal, and simply want to know how the value is going to be delivered."  I blogged about ROI's earlier this year, and couldn't agree more with Andrew and his approach.

One interesting thought about Andrew's approach is simply this:  here's a noted academic (not start up CEO) making the case to avoid the ROI trap.  He's not suggesting you ignore the value add or cultural changes these technologies can and will bring, on the contrary it's clear he believes they will offer great value, it just won't arise out of some formula driven approach.  Unique benefits to unique sets of circumstances, industry by industry, company by company.

That brings me to the example he shared for the audience.  One non-technical, traditional business (a resort builder I believe he said) had started using blogs internally.  One of the engineers responsible for pouring concrete floors had discovered a way to reduce the cost of that project by $500,000, simply by taking an alternative approach.  Rather than sitting on that info, this engineer blogged about the success, which was then viewed by others (not part of his formal network) asking for more details, etc...  While blogging did not create the initial savings, blogging did immediately open up that savings to many others, in a way/forum that was easy to share.  The downstream savings for the company and it's customers could be enormous.

Sure, one example, but I really believe there are many like this that go unannounced.  I applaud Andrew for taking the more unconventional route to establishing the value, rather than simply expecting the same ROI analysis everyone talks about.

Each one of these tacit interactions that are enhanced, or as I previously blogged, more effective interactions, help to create the sustainable corporate advantages every firm should be seeking to capitalize on.  Stuff that in an ROI spreadsheet.

Words can't describe...

...the way I felt this morning waking up and not needing to check MindAlign. After nearly 5 years (7 if you go back to March 2000) of constant connection and chatting, the spigot is off on Parlano. It was like a drug for me, in a positive way. I was truly connected to my team and them to me. It was THE secret behind our success as a firm...now the rest of the world knows.

For me, I'm looking forward to new challenges. In the past several weeks I have had many conversations; my email and phone have been very active. I'm looking forward to attending Defrag next week in Denver. It's a very interesting Web/Enterprise 2.0 conference with some really cool players and technologies. It should be a lot of fun, especially as an independent. The only expectations and goals I have to meet are my own; haven't had that approach at a conference like this in many years.

I've created a new profile on Facebook (add me as a friend) and am looking at a few of the other social networks. They are partially filling in my need for group collaboration, after so many years connected to MindAlign, but I find that they lack the real time impact and meaning that MindAlign provides. I'm still searching for that "way" to use one of these tools in a way that will be meaningful to me professionally.

I have also started to really look at using RSS feeds for personal consumption of news stories/blogs and the stuff that NewsGator is doing. I love their reader, and the ease at which I can add new feeds. What I really need to do is find a way to narrow down the amount of stories/blogs that hit the reader...I find myself pre-maturely marking the stories as "read" simply to clean up the page, rather than focusing on consuming the stories of interest.

I suspect that I will find an intersection of these tools with real time communication that will enhance the way I like to work and add to my professional development. I think that's what we're all trying to do, isn't it.

More next week from Denver and Defrag. But for now, my communities live outside any organization...oh how I look forward to the days of using group chat again!

"They Have Spoken"

The title of my blog, “they speak” comes from the company name (Parlano, Italian for “they speak”) and explained in my first blog.  The name implies very precisely the way in which our customers use the MindAlign technology – in large group chat sessions that persist over long periods of time.

Well, those same customers have always asked about our future.  What plans do we have to take the company public or merge with another entity?  Our response has always been that we will remain focused on our core strengths in “persistent group chat” and embrace other technologies to leverage one’s communication and collaboration environment to its fullest.  The rest, as they say, takes care of itself.

In creating the successful market presence and many mission critical deployments we have at some of the largest and most complex financial services firms in the world, our message has resonated well beyond the walls of Parlano’s offices in Chicago, London and New York.  In fact, the message has resonated as far as the west coast, to the shores of Washington State, and the Microsoft offices in Redmond.  Today, I’m pleased to announce that Parlano has signed a definitive agreement to be acquired by Microsoft.  Both parties intend for the transaction to close early in Q4.  This is a very exciting and proud moment for all Parlano employees, and should be an equally exciting outcome for all our loyal customers.  MindAlign will soon become a core part of the Microsoft Office Communications Server (OCS) platform and be available to tens of millions of desktops worldwide.

Microsoft’s Gurdeep Singh-Pall, had these words to say about the acquisition:

“The acquisition of Parlano and the integration of its leading group chat application will advance Microsoft’s vision to use the power of software to deliver the most complete unified communications experience.”

Of course we share that view and are excited to see MindAlign become an enormous commercial reality and success.  Microsoft is soon to inherit a team of talented and passionate professionals who really understand the value of group chat.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to congratulate not only the current Parlano team who have worked so hard since May 2003, but those from our past who helped shape the vision and mission of this firm.  From that small but powerful team of developers at Swiss Bank (now UBS) who had the vision, to the original contributors at Parlano in March of 2000, everyone played a significant role in achieving this milestone today, and I’m personally grateful for their contributions. 

Now our vision will live on within the world’s largest and most successful software company, ever, Microsoft.  Soon, millions upon millions will continue to “speak” just like we at Parlano have for the past 7+ years.  Many more will now listen and be heard, when they speak.

The 'Efficiency to Effectivenss" Gap in Collaboration

Since my post regarding the McKinsey study on Tacit Interactions, I've had the chance to chat with alot of people about the subject, including one of the authors Brad Johnson at McKinsey.  One of the common themes I am hearing, and that is really starting to resonate clearly with many, is the idea of "efficient" versus "effective" collaboration.  The industry tends to focus on the former, and struggle mightily with the later.

Many of the tools we deploy today are focused on efficiency...in fact I'd argue their ROI is almost completely justified on saving travel expenses, lowering phone costs, or reducing some other structural cost (like email storage).  While I think it's great (in fact probably a requirement) for us to build in these efficiencies in communication, it shouldn't be, in my opinion, the main focus.  Nor do I believe it should be the deciding factor in deploying new collaboration solutions.

The question I ask is: Is it really that valuable to be able to talk to someone quicker, or organize a single team activity around yet another portal, team site or web conference?  Yes and No.  I believe it depends on how you look at value and how you think about collaboration in your business.  If value is simply a reduction in costs or you deploy new tools with little thought to how they're going to be used, then you will find this investment valuable.

However, if what you are trying to do is make your organization more effective, more competitive vis' a vis' your peers, then cost savings is not the driving factor.  In fact, it's a 'nice to have' in comparison to the real value an organization receives by facilitating greater team communication, and by allowing those team members to more effectively communicate across multiple projects, functional areas, and locations in real time.  I call that difference the effectiveness gap.

The effectiveness gap is measured between individual knowledge sharing in more efficient forms of one-to-one communication, and the organizational knowledge built on more implicit interactions (effective communicating) across a larger group of professionals, both inside and outside your organization.  The gap in my view is a large chasm.  Those who bridge this chasm with the right collaboration tools will undoubtedly create sustainable advantages based on their unique contributors (individual professionals) coming together to exchange important ideas or information in groups, faster than the competition, and broadening that awareness throughout the organization at the same time.

I'm encouraged by the conversations I am having with various parties.  I believe that organizations are finally beginning to look at collaboration with an eye toward effectiveness, asking themselves "How can I capture and use the resources (teams of people) we have?"  These same firms are less so concerned with the efficiency of individual correspondence.  E-mail and IM accomplish much of this, and have for years.  These organizations are looking beyond those legacy solutions and determining how they can persistently engage teams (no matter how many times the members change) focused on solving the same problem, and allow them to be involved in more than a single "discussion" at the same time (after all we are all involved in more then one project or discussion at a time). 

Effectiveness to them means solving more problems quicker, executing new strategies with greater insight and influence over time, exponentially increasing the awareness of these decisions/actions/discussions/information, and truly leveraging the unique knowledge of their organizations in ways that their competition cannot.  While I'm not aware of a particular ROI model that captures these benefits in the traditional sense, I am fairly confident that there is no collaboration solution on the market that will cost even a fraction of the gains seen by any one or all of the benefits accruing to your business.

Nothing Virtual About Collaboration

I like Irwin Lazar's recent blog from Collaboration Loop.  Irwin talks about how some firms are beginning to use things like Second Life to create virtual reality collaboration spaces.  The imagination of users is creative.  The basic idea is to create a "place" where end users will actually engage each other.  To me it highlights the need to create real-time team workspaces that facilitate what I call "many to many" interactions.

So what's new?  Not much, just the avatars.  Why is that interesting?  Because the end user experience is very key.  If an application does not create an environment to properly share and consume new information, end users will ignore it.  That's bad for business.

Parlano's persistent group chat doesn't have avatars, but creates an end user experience that brings professionals together with the right teams, in real time.  The "chat rooms" are virtual, after all no one is really physically present.  However, their world is reality (not virtual), and true collaboration occurs.

I find it ironic that with all the great software out there, we have to lean on a "Second Life" to make the First Life better.  That's why software firms like Parlano have to constantly look at new technologies.  You never know what you might find in this life(time), or another.

ROI Demystified: Group Chat Improves 'Tacit Interactions'

I'm often asked about the tangible business benefits of "real time communications" and specifically "Persistent Group Chat" (PGC).  In our experience, results vary both by organization and by the particular collaborative technology selected.  Most people, however, look for some sort of time savings.  For instance, "can I save 15 minutes a day by reducing email traffic?"  While an interesting question, email reduction due to the deployment of persistent group chat is not really where the ROI lies.  The answer is actually embedded in the question, "what will you and everyone else do with the extra time and better structured communication?"  "How do you create and sustain a competitive advantage relative to your peers?"

Competitive advantage from PGC is a common theme that we have seen with our clients (as we have as a company).  That advantage generally comes from broadening information awareness, collapsing information silos, and accelerating interaction.  Intuitively, this all makes sense, but the correlation to quantifiable value still eludes us.

I have looked far and wide for studies that show how enterprises benefit from better group collaboration.  Being a student of financial economics, I have specifically searched for a study that correlates competitive advantage with one's corporate goal: creating shareholder value.  That is, "does better communication and collaboration among your colleagues, partners and customers correlate directly to company value?"

Well, I have finally found a study that makes this case almost as perfectly as if I’d commissioned it. The study appeared in McKinsey Consulting’s “The McKinsey Quarterly,” published in January 2007 and titled, "Competitive advantage from better interactions."  The article is a must-read for anyone who has labored to understand:

(1) Why there is a growing need for collaboration (what market forces are making collaboration tools a 'need to have') and,

(2) the impact of effective collaboration on a firm’s value. 

You can find the article here:(http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_abstract_visitor.aspx?ar=1767) , a free subscription/sign-up is required.

The first question is answered in the study by showing an increasing percentage of corporate roles that are primarily "Tacit Interaction" based roles.  Tacit Interaction is defined as "the searching, coordinating, and monitoring of activities to exchange goods, services, and information."  These are roles, the article suggests, where "traditional" efficiency improvements (i.e., typical production line improvements) won't make a difference; instead, organizations need to make tacit interactive professionals more "effective" in what they do…coordinating, collaborating, deciding, and acting.  Think salespeople, management, marketing professionals, consultants, etc., where the transaction and type of work is described by the article as "complex."  Coordinating resources, sharing information, and generally getting things done.  There's no production line for this and certainly no six-sigma improvement.  The key is that the study shows a growing dependency on these roles across all industries, and a growing need to make these interactions more effective.

So, how is that done?  It's suggested in the article that this is accomplished by a series of both organizational (culture, management style, structure and compensation) and technological (collaborative tools that allow groups to better communicate) improvements. Industries where the dominant interaction is tacit have been leaders in the adoption of these managerial and organizational practices, as well as early adopters of new forms of technology that help accomplish the ultimate goal of more productive team interactions.  Inherently, organizations in these industries know that the more productive teams are, the more productive the organization as a whole (in terms of revenue, competition, and value).

Part of the competitive advantage we at Parlano have always espoused, and the article confirms, comes in the form of a workforce that has specific knowledge and understanding that can organically and uniquely grow over time through improved team (tacit)interactions. Unlike improvements in a production line that can be copied from firm to firm, these knowledge-specific advantages are hard to replicate, if not impossible, and are the basis for sustainable competitive advantages relative to one’s peers.

The second question is answered in a brilliant way.  A diagram in the article (Exhibit 2) shows what I like to call the "Horn of EBITDA."  The diagram has (a) Industries on the horizontal (X) axis measured by "Intensity of tacit interaction" from low (left) to high (right) and (b) the average Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, & Amortization (EBITDA) per employee (as measured and normalized by a comparison of the standard deviation of EBITDA per employee to the mean) on the vertical (Y) axis.  EBITDA is used here as an indication of value and value creation, the ultimate goal of every organization.  In theory, the higher the EBITDA, the higher relative value to one's peer group. 

The chart compares industries on the scale of intensity of tacit interaction and variation in company-level performance. No surprise that those industries with a lower variability of EBITDA to employee were firms with lower intensities of tacit interaction.  The conclusion is that those firms are more "transformational" or "transactional" driven, for example steel, freight companies, etc..., and there is less to gain or lose because much of the improvements in those processes have been made. 

However, the chart suggests that even those in traditional industries can improve their tacit interactions, that those interactions are a growing part of their business, and that this will likely be the basis by which they outperform their peer group and thus become valued higher.  This is the exact argument that we make anecdotally when asked how collaboration, or persistent group chat, helps or applies to "traditional" industries.  This article supplies the evidence to those claims.  Thus, every firm has a growing number of tacit interactions and should easily justify the investment in collaborative technologies. 

As you move to the right of the chart and look at the industry highlighted (Investment Banking and, by extension, Capital Markets), it's not difficult to understand why Parlano has focused so much attention and effort to this sector.  There's more tacit interaction, arguably the highest, and more to gain by improving it.  So, Financial Services will invest more heavily and help to innovate solutions that improve tacit interactions.  Those innovations and best practices are then replicated back to industries on the left, and the early adopters will quickly move to the top of their industry and competitively outperform their peer group(s).

I believe Persistent Group Chat is at the center of these investments and improvements in tacit interactions.  Tacit interactions are not defined by one-to-one exchanges, rather intercompany team communication and knowledge sharing that transcend organizational hierarchy.  They flatten the communication lines and become, as the article suggests, critical…"multi-directional." 

Email, IM, wikis, blogs, etc…are all part of the answer, but when the requirement is real-time exchange in a multi-directional sense, persistent group chat is the natural fit.  Tacit interactions need to be both synchronous and asynchronous, widely disseminated in some instances and narrow in others.  But, importantly, the velocity and volume of more productive tacit interactions will define the competitive advantages.  That's why it’s not about 15 minutes saved or 40 percent less email.  That's why PGC is the dominant form of communication and collaboration across the largest sell side institutions around the globe.  It's also why we have consistently seen dramatic improvements in communications and results for each of our clients, and why other forms of communication (like email) wane over time…but that's not the primary purpose.

I strongly encourage anyone interested in understanding the real underlying benefits of collaboration in an organization to read the McKinsey article in full.  The path is drawn between the investment in technology and organizational change, to shareholder value.  Persistent Group Chat will be an important enabler and a must-have for any organization serious about improving team collaboration.

Mobility Conference Day 3

Well, a short half day and back to the reality of Chicago cold and snow after a few gorgeous day in the Dallas area.  I thought I'd get this in before I board my flight to O'Hare.  Thanks to the Red Carpet Club and their Hotspot.

This morning's key note was given by Ken Dulaney (who I personal spoke with the day before) covering Annual Mobile Device Update.  Ken is very knowledgeable and  a terrific representative for Gartner.  He gets paid to follow the market and offer opinions, and that he did. 

He led off with a comment or two about Apple's new phone (can we call it iPhone legally yet?).  Ken thought it was a great design and device…for media, but he quickly added, "don't worry we're not going to go out recommending these for enterprises."  He suggested that at the price point and functionality there's not much to recommend over the incumbents. 

Ken also highlighted a study that suggested attrition of users based on the complexity of the mobile application.  Specifically, for each 'click' down into the application, or mobile browser, for instance, you lose 50% of the users at each step.  That's a high attrition rate and something mobile software vendors have to be very cognizant of.

Ken also mentioned the growing interest in location based services, or GPS.  He quoted a study that suggested by 2011 there will be over one-billion GPS devices embedded in mobile devices.  The real possibilities for enterprise and B2C applications are there…so are the concerns over privacy, tracking and theft. 

Ken covered a similar theme to some of the other Gartner analysts in the previous days.  That is the fragmentation of devices, OS, and applications, and the difficulty for IT organizations to support them.  Ken provided some guidelines for IT to consider, but there isn’t a clear answer.  His advice, which I liked, was rather then say no, give users a limited range of options. "This is what we can do for you" is a lot better answer than "no."  If IT departments can limit the device and application support they stand a better chance of winning over users, offering something of value, and keeping out rogue devices.

After two and one-half days in Dallas I reflect back and ask, what are the three things I take away from the conference?  Here's my list:

1. When you say "Mobile" you have to qualify yourself.  Are you talking about mobile computing (WiFi, WiMAX, broadband connection services, etc…) on your PC?  Are you talking about Mobile Consumer (or B2C) applications like buying tickets, getting flight updates, making reservations, etc…?  Or, are you talking about Mobile Enterprise applications like wireless email and document management, IM and Presence, or a growing category of Unified Business Communications?  There's a whole set of different questions and opportunities in each category.

2. Mobile Enterprise if very fragmented with no clear leader worldwide.  The fragmentation is at the device, OS, and application layer making it even more complex.  There are a few very large players trying to win that position in the early 2000's, but no one has dominated yet.  In the conference I'm not sure I heard anyone suggest who the winner might be, expect for the vendors promoting themselves.

3. Finally, in Mobile Enterprise, there is no application, other than wireless email, that is horizontally successful.  All of the vendor presentation and end user case studies were close, functional applications.  Not one spoke of a broad, enterprise-wide mobile enablement.  The consensus was that IM and Presence based applications around collaboration are growing in popularity and deployment along side email (that's good news for Parlano!) but not one other application for the enterprise "knowledge worker" was suggested as the next killer mobile application.

Overall it was a very good conference that opened my eyes to some of the opportunities that exist to make our lives better with mobile, and gave me a greater appreciation of the real mobile industry structural problems that persist today, and must be hurdled in order for all of us to benefit from the innovation that is taking place.

Time to board.

Mobility Conference Day 2

Another day in Dallas.  While Chicago was getting 3-5" of snow and single digit temps again, it was nearly 70 degrees in Dallas, and delightful. 

Today's keynote was about WiMax.  Ron Resnick is the Chairman of the WiMax Forum delivered an interesting talk about the benefits of WiMax, as opposed to a technical discussion about what it is; an approach I much preferred.  What I took away was two main points, though admittedly he had many.

First, WiMax will be great when it exists, everyone can access it, and have great connectivity.   The concept of wireless broadband anywhere, anytime is really appealing.  Their approach is to make it cheap, easy  to use, and ubiquitous.  It all sounds great, like many promising technologies.  For me, I will believe it when I see it.  But, look forward to the benefits.

Second, and maybe more importantly, it remains to be seen how the current network infrastructure players deal with this.  Ron seemed to suggest that deployment might be faster in lesser developer countries; places where significant investments have not already been made and ROI models are not looking to realized.  It's hard to ignore the business justifications, but what happens, as we have seen over and over, developing countries are in better positions to deploy newer, better technology then we're prepared to deploy in the US.  In the end demand will drive the investment and new infrastructure, but if we don’t know what we're missing, who'll ask?

Back to Mobile Enterprise…Nokia delivered a presentation about what they are doing with Mobility for the enterprise.  Their acquisition last year of Intellisync was a big key.  Clearly they are a leader in devices, and with Intellisync their enterprise application offerings are filling out nicely.  As you might know, we collaborated with Nokia (via Intellisync on our MindAlign Mobile application). 

In the presentation Nokia presented a slide with a traditional value curve going up.  The bottom of the curve (in terms of value to the enterprise) was voice, then email, applications, VoIP and finally Collaboration rounding out the top of the curve.   I couldn't’t agree more with the value judgment and assessment that collaboration is the top of the chart.  Being able to take your "communities, experts and topics of interests" with you, away from your desk top is invaluable.  If mobility is about being "connected" in the sense of access to people and information, then collaboration is the ultimate result.

After listening to Nokia's pitch, and Motorola's yesterday, as well as knowing Microsoft's Windows Mobile pitch, there are clearly 3 big players, and more lining up to compete for dominance in the enterprise mobile applications space.  Not just at a device or OS level, but at a real application level.  After all, it’s the only way anyone is measuring the impact of Mobile Enterprise on its organization…are you getting some improvement in productivity, cost reduction, or competitive advantage?  The battle will be interesting and there is going to be a lot of disappointment along the way.

Mike King of Gartner spoke late in the morning about maximizing your mobile enterprise.  Mike is a great speaker with useful insight about how to think about mobile enterprise.  I took away the following (maybe it obvious, but I do agree).  Mobile applications should be driven by the business need and user profile.  There is no one size fits all, each opportunity and the needs of the application users, the type of device(s) (rugged or consumer, phone pad or keyboard) that need to be supported, and the security model all need to be thoughtfully considered.   It's not a Web 2.0-like world for Mobile Enterprise; users can't just buy a device, load applications and connect away. 

Finally, I listened to Nick Jones of Gartner speak about the opportunities and inhibitors for B2C applications and commerce.  Nick passionately described some very interesting applications dealing with ecommerce, location awareness, personalization, and advertising.  There are some things that seem like no brainers.  For instance, why shouldn't we be able to open our mobile device search for a Starbuck's and have the phone place our favorite order, pay for the transaction and confirm their receipt.  That was an easy example, but drives the point that there are many things that could be done. 

The question is, why not yet?  He says that it has to do with a combination of immature technology, Network Operator resistance to innovation and change, higher barriers to entry, complex business relationships that must be made and maintained (payments for example) and consumer trust (we just are there yet).  Nick believes much of this will change over the next several years (2009+).  It'll be driven by technology innovations, large players who can push the network operators (Microsoft) and kids.  Yes, like many newly minted "cool things" our kids will show us the way to make our lives easier (or so we hope).

One quick factoid from the day that I took note of.  A study (I did not get the firm's name so take it in that context) showed that on average 476 cell phones, 119 PDA's and 25 laptops are left in taxis each day…in Chicago alone!  Being from Chicago I found that interesting.  Though I bet yesterday (Monday February 5) there were a lot less lost in taxis…too many fans of the beloved Chicago Bears were home licking their wounds from a stinging loss to Mr. Manning and the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLI.  Oh well, we still have '85, six Bulls championships and the grand daddy of them all in '05, a White Sox World Championship.

More tomorrow. 

Mobility Conference Day 1

As Parlano recently released its first version of MindAlign Mobile, there's a ton of excitement in the firm about the potential to take real time communities with you, wherever and whenever.  So,  I thought I'd attend the Gartner Wireless and Mobile Summit in Dallas.  The 55 degree temps beat the -8 degrees this morning on the way to O'Hare.  In the relative warmth of Dallas, each of the next 3 days I will provide some highlights and comments from the things I saw and heard during the presentations or side bar discussions happening all over the conference.

The first thing that really struck me is that there seems to not be a common ROI model or approach to measuring gains in productivity or reduction in cost with the adoption of mobile applications.   The reason why is that except for wireless email and SMS messaging, there isn't a broad, horizontal deployment of mobile applications.  They are all functionally driven (sales wants CRM, support wants customer service, logistics needs location and inventory management applications).  Mobility, from an enterprise deployment standpoint, still seems to be clearly crossing the chasm and firmly entrenched in bowling alley strategies to expand use and sell through references.  The ROI model is thus company specific and varies by use.  That's OK, it just shows the maturity of the model, thus far.

On top of that, the mobile architectures and platforms (OS's and handsets) are just as scattered in deployments.  Thick, thin, rich or no client?  Answer is it depends.   On what does it depend?  Well, based on the application, the need for a client experience on the mobile platform, and the use of data (should it reside on the device or not).  It can be a portal view of data or a rich email client.  As much as large vendors like Microsoft, IBM, or others would like us to think there's already a winner, the general consensus seems to be that there is no single platform, yet.  But, there are a lot of bets being placed.  The carriers, the software vendors, and the device makers are all vying for a position, and hoping to become the dominant player.

What about devices?  Motorola, Niki, RIM or Sam sung devices…which one do you choose?   Answer again, it depends.  On what?  Well, in part whatever some individual user(s) may have brought into the organization and forced IT to support.  I bet many of have witnessed this first hand.   Each of these handset vendors is investing heavily in their hardware and software platforms to dominate.  No one yet has, horizontally.

Business to consumer (B2C) applications are not that much different.  Here you get into what carriers can do and will support, beyond the issues of device and OS support.  At one of the presentations about the use of mobile in Asia, some regions are doing interesting things around money transfers, purchases, bar codes (for buying tickets, think Fandango but without printing a page to take to the theater).

One of the biggest hurdles on these applications of mobile in Asia that was presented by Sandy Shen of Gartner was the fragmented support for these applications.  To me it was sort of like deciding which credit card to use (Amex or Visa) but having to choose one because most retailer and carriers (whom you individually sign up for) only support a certain type of transaction.  So you can transact some retail purchases on your phone in some stores, but not others.  That's a barrier, but isn't stopping progress.  The applications are real but the fragmentation causes real headaches if anyone is trying to roll out a very horizontal or cross regional application.

Finally, in an afternoon presentation by Dan Rudolph, Director of Product Marketing, Motorola Good Technology, Dan (via Radicatti Research) presented that wireless/mobile email has saved end users more than 80 minutes per day (vs. being tethered to their desk for email), up from 58 minutes just a few years ago.  All I have to say about that study is that I don’t spend 2 hours a day on email as it is, and if I did I should look for new employment.  Anyone spending that much time on email, to see that much of an increase in time saved, is doing something wrong.  Admittedly I don't know much about the research that came to this conclusion, but the basic premise that we spend so much time, daily, on email bothers me.  We don't need to mobilize it, we need to eliminate it!

On that note I have to go check my email...more tomorrow.