Hooking up on the internet

I know what you are thinking. Why is Anshu talking about hooking up on a software blog? Is there yet another certified love finding service to challenge eHarmony? And how does this fit into the enterprise software or web2.0 world? Well, rest assured the world, at least the virtual one, is not about to come apart.

This blog post is about making real applications hook up (dictionary meaning: To assemble or wire) without writing code. Teqlo is a platform for end users to build mashups of web services. It is a bit hard to explain why an end user (non programmer) would want to build a mashup till you think of millions of users today that 'build' applications in Excel by writing formulas and connecting cells and spreadsheets. With the web acting as the source of much of the data (email, pictures, reports, maps), many users are performing tasks that require input from various web sites (technically, we services) and need to be combined in various task flows and computations.

The easiest example to think is of a sales person who wants to call various contacts in his Salesforce (or Siebel On-Demand) CRM contact list using Skype. He either has to cut and paste, or wait for a programmer to create a mashup. Teqlo would allow such users to build their own mashups.

Intercity Mashups using 4 letter APIs (R.O.A.D.)

I was recently invited to a preview demo of Teqlo before its launch by Jeff Nolan (Teqlo). He built a real mashup in less than 15 minutes live during the demo. The best way to picture this is by seeing the Teqlo movie put together by Rod Boothby (also from Teqlo). The tools are not yet pretty- its a small startup focusing on functionality and figuring out complex technical issues (micro-formats) and how to hide them from the average consumer. But they are functional and they are now allowing users to sign up for a beta.

Recently, Yahoo! launched Yahoo! Pipes - and its the closest in its mission to Yahoo! Pipes. However, there are some key differences. Yahoo! Pipes works on (RSS) feeds - essentially allowing you to filter and combine feeds. Teqlo, on the other hand, works with web services such as EBay, Amazon etc.

The value of Teqlo's platform will go up as more and more mashups (Teqlets) are built and shared by users. The challenge for them is to get enough users excited to build out an interesting set of mashups that can then be copied and enhanced by others. Although, the full details are not yet worked out- Jeff did share that Teqlo will look to create a market place of apps for users and share in the profits. It is also investing its own resources in building some apps to get to the critical mass. Salesforce's AppExchange is one model to emulate in this space although Salesforce is constrained by its CRM roots and most of the AppExchange apps are what I would call CRM bug fixes and enhancements. (Yes, you do not have to be a savvy reader to see my bias here.)

Both Yahoo! and Teqlo are focusing on the (extranet) web and not the enterprise. I personally think that the ability to connect enterprise applications with web based applications may be the most interesting place for application of such tools- the reason is that Google Maps+FlickR, or Salesforce+Skype problems are common enough that a developer can write code, post it and make some money (or a name) in the process. Where the end user is left high and dry is when she is trying to hook up the recruitment system (big HR) or enterprise CRM with Skype to call down the list of candidates. Jeff's response is that Teqlo is initially focusing on the extranet initially but he clearly sees value in enterprise mashups too- after all, he did work for SAP for many years and know this space wll.

I am curious to see how this plays out. After all, many end users are not even comfortable or adept at Excel spreadsheet apps. It is the business analyst with some techinical knowledge that builds out spreadsheet apps, reports and small apps (Oracle Application Express/HTML DB) in many companies. A new job function (Business Analyst 2.0) may emerge to meet these needs.

What do you think about mashup tools? Do you think this is too early? Have you ever felt the need to build such an app?

Joining the Enterprise Irregulars- a study in Ecosystems

I am excited to report that I have been invited to join Enterprise Irregulars, and have accepted. As the Enterprise Irregular says- "We are a diverse group of practitioners, consultants, investors, journalists, analysts and full time bloggers who share a common passion - enterprise technology and its application to business in the 21st century." Over the last year, since I started blogging I have read and opined on articles by fellow Irregulars Jeff Nolan, Rod Boothby, Vinnie Mirchandani and exchanged comments and emails with others.


What does this mean for my blog visitors? You will see a new Enterprise Irregular badge displayed on my blog. This blog will be featured on the Enterprise Irregular site so some of you can read my articles and all others in one single place, or subscribe to our feed. I will also be incented to write more regularly (and be funnier?) as my blog will reach a broader audience.

Ecosystem
The Enterprise Irregulars illustrates many benefits of an ecosystem and these principles apply to many other endeavors in life including a startup or a mature business.

• Marketing: It is hard for one of us to create a brand since many of us blog part time. The EI (Enterprise Irregulars) allows us to pool our marketing resources and benefit from it.
• Influence: Not too many people care about what an individual reader with a relatively small readership may have to say. But when we speak as a group of Enterprise Software experts, our combined influence is far greater.
• Community: As I mentioned, having a sense of community of fellow readers (or fellow enterpreneurs or fellow researchers) encourages everyone to try harder.

What are your thoughts? How have you used the power of the ecosystem in your life? What about LinkedIn as an ecosystem enabler?

Ever heard of UFIDA, KingDee, Tally?

Well, you may never have heard of these enterprise software vendors but they are the giants from China and India. KingDee and UFIDA are #1 and #3 vendors in China and Tally is the top local vendor in India. Gartner recently predicted that a large vendor will emerge from China and India over the next 5 years. These 3 could well be the favorites for that spot. Tally is the QuickBooks of India with ambitions in mid-market ERP.

These homegrown wonders have the advantage of deep knowledge of the local markets, ability to develop software that fits the unique infrastructure of these countries. For example, connectivity to the Internet is far from ubiquitous in India. These limitations box these vendors allowing them to innovate in a space that is unique and disconnected from the global enterprise software world. And believe it or not, this is actually an advantage (see The Innovation Sandbox by C.K. Prahlad) as it prevents easy co-option by global vendors. We have already seen this play out in the consumer internet world with the success of Baidu.

Race to the top?
(by Bruno Girin)

So while we all look to climb the ladder of features and architecture and race to take advantage of Web2.0 and SOA in the enterprise software universe, we are also increasingly distancing ourselves from a market that cares about simple software that meets the most basic needs, can run in a sometimes connected world and on previous generation computers. And this market at the bottom of the pyramid is probably many times larger than the top we are all running towards. What do you think?

-

Enterprise 2.0 is same as Web 2.0

I think some of us are over thinking the Enterprise 2.0 and Enterprise Mashups. The key is to learn from history and apply the knowledge to the present. Jeff Nolan has nicely summarized some of the discussion around Enterprise 2.0. Rod Boothby has raised the question of mashups in the context of Enterprise 2.0 I find Vinnie Mrichandani's post to be the best description of issues we need to consider and resolve.

However, the idea of Enterprise 2.0 seems inside-out to me. People from the enterprise world used to large ERP-style applications and deployments thinking in traditional terms with a willingness to tweak the model to incorporate 2.0 from Web 2.0. This will not suffice. The square (pun intended) peg of Enterprise software will not fit into the round hole (no pun intended) of Web 2.0

A lesson in history

The IT departments and software vendors that had significant investments in client-server tried to simply adapt client-server to the web rather than moving to true N-tier architecture. Slapping a portal on top of client-server software helped SI's and vendors make some money but they were no competition for applications designed from the ground up for the web. A lot of companies are now trying to do the same by trying to 'service-orient' their existing applications. I find the tone of discussion on Enterprise 2.0 suffering from the same problem.

Principles of Enterprise 2.0

The real Enterprise 2.0 applications are the SaaS applications (On-demand) from the likes of Salesforce.com, NetSuite, Siebel On-Demand etc. Some key characteristics of Enterprise 2.0 applications will be SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) delivery model, SOA architecture, simple web services based integration, extensiblity and open-ness.

SaaS & Long-tail: I would argue that all Web 2.0 applications are hosting-capable if not entirely hosted. The benefits of the long tail come into effect only when you have large number of users and but for a few very large companies it is hard to see how this effect will play out if the application is not hosted.

SOA, Web Services & Mashups: The Web 2.0 mashups were enabled by open standards-based APIs with many of them using either web services or other standards such as ATOM. In the enterprise, you need similar capabilities to do end-user integration. And SOA & web services help you expose your internal applications for integration. Rod Boothby poses an interesting question on what will Enterprise 2.0 mashups look like. I strongly believe (that's what blogs are meant for, right?) that Enterprise 2.0 mashups will look just like Web2.0 mashups. Just as your internal web apps for email and procurement now look just like Yahoo! and Amazon, in time your internal Enterprise 2.0 apps will look like the Web2.0 apps. Here is an example- you are browsing a catalog in your procurement application. As you mouse over the price, a bubble pops up (AJAX style) to tell you whether this is within your purchasing authority. This is a mashup of procurement and financials.

Why is this so hard?
If Enterprise 2.0 looks, feels and behaves like Web2.0 then why is it so hard. It is not hard, its hard for the existing enterprise applications that will in five years be legacy just as client-server applications became legacy and mainframe apps before that.

Are we done?
No, we are not done with building out Enterprise 2.0. The CRM space has made a good beginning and there are several others in various stages of development. With a new class of Enterprise 2.0, there will be new problems. Rather than looking for how to morph Enterprise 1.0 (did we ever finish 1.0, btw) into Enterprise 2.0, the key is to look at the Enterprise 2.0 and fill gaps. Some of these gaps are in the areas that have been brought up by Jeff Nolan and others. These include:
- Integration 2.0: How will Enterprise 2.0 applications integrate with each other? Will it be a hosted integration model?
- Identity 2.0: How do you enable single sign-on in Enterprise 2.0? Again rather than thinking about simply connecting your existing LDAP to Enterprise 2.0, look to online identity service providers.
- Customization 2.0: (I am as annoyed with having to say 2.0 after every term that applies to this new class of apps but couldn't resist it.) The question is how do I customize the new applications for specific verticals? Again look for the emergence of experts from verticals and regions. A Chinese company that customizes your vanilla Financials system to deal with national regulations. And then yet another company customizing that offering for clothing manufacturers to account for specialized business processes to deal with QR (Quantitative Restrictions) on clothing imports. And so on and so forth. Essentially, you end up with a network of service providers rather than customization by internal IT.

There are other issues of service-level monitoring and guarantees, analytics, bulk upload, security etc. Rather than trying to solve all these problems a priori before we build Enterprise 2.0, these concerns will get sorted out as we build out the services for the 2.0 world. Those of us who fall into the not good enough trap need to go back and re-read Innovator's Dilemma. The barely good enough for some will, in time, with iterative innovation become good enough for most.

I think this is an interesting discussion and I look forward to more exchanges and posts on this topic.

Update: FASTForward Blog's Joe McKendrick has picked up and extensively commented on this post at Fitting the Enterprise 2.0 Square Peg into the Web 2.0 Round Hole

Update: ZDNet's recent post entitled Facebook for Enterprise = Enterprise appears to agree with my viewpoint.

Tags: SAP Web2.0 SOA Enterprise2.0 wisezen