Highly Competitive - software industry insights

Business People are Drivers of the New Age of MDM

 

Part 4 of a six part series on the "New Age of Master Data Management"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Master data management and data governance have always been about business. However, there has been a history of MDM implementations putting too much emphasis on technology, and less time into over-arching business aspects. For successful outcomes and continuous improvement, the ongoing participation of various business roles is an essential element of MDM strategies and activities. It takes 'everybody' to ensure optimal data management processes that bolster important business activities.

Organizations need to make data available to more people, which may mean expanding master data management participation across more of the organization. With additional business personnel involved, new ways to use master data will emerge that will benefit more initiatives, strategies, and decision-making at multiple levels. Data consumers may also exist beyond the organization: partners, business ecosystems, third-party developers, and managed services providers.

Data quality is the cornerstone of producing reliable data. Poor data quality prevents organizations from realizing full value from data and can cause serious problems that derail important business initiatives. Business domain knowledge is a critical part of ensuring data credibility. And, of course, it's business people who own the understanding of how data is used, for which processes, and what future uses may be in the offing.

For all of these activities, business roles may need access to the appropriate capabilities in MDM software solutions -- but will come with different levels of technical proficiency.

 

Data Governance Leads the Way for Business User Inclusion

Like many well-defined MDM initiatives, data governance approaches that focus on business cases often better connect data management processes to necessary uses by different business roles. Data governance teams that are comprised of business and technical personnel can take advantage of an array of real world experience to improve processes and practices for tracking data ownership and governance accountability.

A collaborative framework (supported by software technology) is essential for successful data governance efforts. Such a framework can support both direct and indirect collaboration between business and technical roles, ensuring continuous work on defining and managing policies and practices, expanding and clarifying business rules, and tracking activities by all users to maintain compliance and accountability for information lifecycles.

Data management software that offers data profiling capabilities extends an important tool to business users across the organization. Business users can be included in data quality / data relevance processes through continual use of data profiling, to better examine the accuracy and value of data at any point. This is particularly important since a great deal of data comes with a short shelf life of relevance for business operations and initiatives.

Data governance is also a critical component of self-service approaches to data analytics, data integration and MDM. Self-service technologies are growing particularly to provide business users with access to more of the data that is essential for many activities in an organization. There is real risk associated with such self-service data platforms that must be addressed through centralized IT management and governance, which need to be in place to prevent piecemeal and poorly managed efforts scattered throughout the organization. Cloud-based self-service solutions are well-positioned for governance that maps into organizational data governance practices and policies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Business User Access and Pervasive Master Data Management

Master data management appears to be on the threshold of becoming a pervasive platform. 'Platform' refers to both a key go-to initiative for data-smart organizations and to the integrated technologies that underpin master data management. Making MDM pervasive comes from a technology solution base that equips organizations to handle any data-driven scenario and support any business case, where business and technical roles take on innumerable data-related tasks. It's a mindset of business and technology teams working together to use data to improve business results and competitive edge. This is aided by increased access, as appropriate, for less technical business users and for line-of-business developers who don't have deep MDM expertise.

More MDM software vendors are recognizing that different user roles, especially business roles, comprise a major sustaining driver for the future of master data management. When vendors create role-based UIs and capabilities focused on less-technical users, the work they do also benefits the UIs and capabilities for the more technically adept. Organizations benefit greatly from better software design and the push to expand what MDM technologies can accomplish for diverse MDM activities, and for the people involved in completing them.

Of course, it takes very sophisticated technologies behind the scenes to deliver "simple" UIs that give everyday business users access to MDM and data governance capabilities. A lot of work must be done especially to build in safeguards to keep less technical business users out of trouble. To ensure that everyday business users do the work correctly and avoid serious missteps, each category of MDM activity has to be specifically defined, with straightforward guidance at every step.

If an MDM solution doesn't provide pre-built objects, IT teams should take on the development of appropriate (and reusable) workflows, and other objects to enable business user participation, while building in safeguards. IT teams also have the responsibility to develop guidelines for business users, and then monitor and assist these users as needed.

Well-structured MDM initiatives can actually move certain tasks, like exploratory analysis, from technical teams to business roles. Business domain experts can take on responsibility for managing and validating business rules and data hierarchies that operate optimally for business needs. The right business roles can also create, validate and enhance approval workflows.

 

Drivers of New Age MDM

Tremendous potential exists for the increased participation of business people in MDM and data governance activities. Opportunities are opening up for business users to utilize powerful MDM software capabilities to explore, manipulate and access data without constant IT involvement. There is obvious advantage to organizations that fully support and empower business users to work more directly in many aspects of data management. When technical and business teams cooperate to engender improved collaboration, many MDM activities can be performed quickly and effectively, while ensuring that data governance practices and policies are upheld.

Organizations would be wise to develop management plans to assure that business users are empowered but also protected when working with MDM platforms. Cooperative action is also needed from technical and business teams to ensure that business user "protection" doesn't inhibit necessary access and use of capabilities.

Executives in many organizations understand the value of trustworthy and relevant data for improved operations, productivity, competitiveness, and overall decision-making. But these executives still struggle with creating the strategies and organizational transformations that put usable data in the hands of many more business users. With data as a clear strategic must-have, organizations are obligated to do more to build out a comprehensive plan for business user participation and then actively work with teams to execute it.

 

Image source: Native American Weaving

 

About the author: Julie is an independent consultant and industry analyst for B2B software solutions, providing services to vendors to improve strategies for customers and target markets, products and solutions, and future direction. Julie has expertise in several solution spaces including: data integration and data quality; analytics and BI; business process, workflow and collaboration; digital marketing, WCM and social media; and the pivotal importance of user and customer experiences. Julie shares her takes on the software industry via her blog Highly Competitive and on Twitter: @juliebhunt For more information: Julie Hunt Consulting – Strategies for B2B Software Solutions: Working from the Customer Perspective

Avoiding Chaos, Losing Serendipity?

 

From earliest times, humans, as social animals, have continuously faced decisions about “who to let in”. Motivations for doing so are varied. Hierarchies of social, economic and political ranking, closed groups and cults, exclusivity, outcasts – all of these social artifacts are still present in all aspects of human societies, work, play, and so on. With the growth of the Internet and social venues, it’s now somewhat becoming: “who do I let in” and “what do I let in”.

For those who are active on the Internet, for business or personal reasons, there can be a constant drumming of feeling bombarded and overwhelmed: information overload, ‘big data’, content popping up everywhere, social data explosion, too much noise. From time to time, we each might run an internal monologue such as this:

If I let everything in will I go crazy? Should I start limiting information that I encounter – then: what and how to filter things out? Am I filtering out thoughts, opinions, information that I need to hear, even if they are uncomfortable? Am I filtering so much that I’m only hearing what I already accept and think? Who am I filtering out that I should be hearing?

 

Alvin Toffler in “Future Shock” (1970) is usually credited for bringing the term “information overload” into everyday use. According to Toffler, people will experience future shock due to accelerated and ever-increasing proliferations and changes in technology, information, social interaction -- which results in “shattering stress and disorientation”. Toffler equated information overload to “sensory overload” that impeded understanding and decision-making. Obviously we continue to use the phrase “information overload” in our current era of “all things Internet”: 

Commentators have coined a profusion of phrases to describe the anxiety and anomie caused by too much information: “data asphyxiation” (William van Winkle), “data smog” (David Shenk), “information fatigue syndrome” (David Lewis), “cognitive overload” (Eric Schmidt) and “time famine” (Leslie Perlow).

Johann Hari, a British journalist, notes that there is a good reason why “wired” means both “connected to the internet” and “high, frantic, unable to concentrate”.

 

Signal to Noise – Or the Noise is the Signal?

Audio engineering terminology has achieved popularity with some who seek ways to “manage the cacophony” of information, conversations and content on the Internet in various venues. This term is used even more by solution vendors, services and consultants who want to “solve the problem of too much noise” for individuals and organizations: Finding the signal in the noise and fine-tuning the signal-to-noise ratio.

Signal-to-noise ratio (often abbreviated SNR or S/N) is a measure used in science and engineering that compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise. It is defined as the ratio of signal power to the noise power. A ratio higher than 1:1 indicates more signal than noise. While SNR is commonly quoted for electrical signals, it can be applied to any form of signal (such as isotope levels in an ice core or biochemical signaling between cells).

As an engineering concept, identifying a legitimate signal in the noise is pretty much a black and white event, a measurable result from a standardized formula. But this is not as easily accomplished when applying the same notion to the wide variety of information, content, conversations, forums on the internet and elsewhere. While there is popular use of these phrases, is there truly anything gained from using them?

While it sounds clever, applying an engineering construct to a collection of different types of information and data that have highly qualitative attributes can be a trap. Co-opting the engineering terminology makes many people think that there’s a way to quantitatively sort out what matters, forgetting that many qualitative and even fanciful factors can be equally important. One person’s bunch of noise is another’s treasure trove of signals – so even the concept of signal to noise is highly subjective when alluding to content and information. When it comes to qualitative content, conversations, information -- the noise may be the signal.

The questions may now become:  How do I determine what is noise – or is that even useful? When does noise become what I need to hear? When does filtering out the noise become awareness-censorship and deprivation of the very diversity of ideas that I seek and need?

  

Filter and Unfiltering

With this very real and constant bombardment of information, content, conversations, and social connections, yes, using filtering, classifications, lists, personalized search, and other devices can frequently be useful. But too much filtering can also be harmful, stifling, empty. Any kind of filtering has impact (positive, negative) on controlling (limiting) the human connections that could make a huge difference in our daily endeavors – and particularly, on thinking in new ways, innovation and creativity. Rules, filters, selection – all fine, as long as it is understood what might be excluded, as well as included.

Venturing out on a Google search to look for the “two faces of filtering”, most of what turned up was “how-to” advice that was mainly about filtering. Very little turned up to enlighten me on how filtering impedes better understanding or the dangers of filtering out the unexpected. (The ultimate irony here is speculating how much Google was filtering/personalizing my search in the first place.)

With the large amount of “stuff” that is communicated on Twitter, lists and hashtags have become filtering devices that many use, with mixed results. Some find the right mix in their lists, sometimes a refuge; some realize that they are missing out on new conversations and connections because of their lists. Others dance a fine jig between their lists and the general tweetstream.

Some want Twitter to provide the barometer for determining what may be valid and valuable to Me, relative to particular individual perspectives and sets of interests:

I want Twitter to figure out how to present that stream in a way that adds value to my life. It's about the visual display of information, sure, but it's more than that. It requires some Really F*ing Hard Math, crossed with some Really Really Hard Semantic Search, mixed with more Super Ridiculous Difficult Math. Because we're talking about some super big numbers here: 200 million tweets a day across hundreds of millions of accounts. And that's growing bigger by the hour.

  

First, twitter “content” is not just information, or content pure and simple. It’s also social activity. So, multiple algorithms would be required to extract relevance from tweets.

It strikes me that these algorithms might fall into two broad categories: content relevance and social relevance. Content is relevant on twitter generically, as trending news and information, often cited, agreed with, and linked to.

 

But the Twitter firehose, fully open, is quite friendly to Serendipity – as well as to Chaos. Twitter, full on, epitomizes communication almost completely unfiltered. Most activities, information, knowledge, content, opinions are generally open to anyone. Twitter can facilitate meeting people you’d never otherwise meet. New ideas smack you in the face to make you uneasy in ways that call for reexamining your own thought processes and contentions, whether for work or personal life. Comforting birds-of-a-feather are also present to reassure ideas already held.

Connections and brainstorms spring up where impromptu conversations are usually open to all, with an almost stream-of-consciousness flow. Unexpected new relationships develop. When disparate worlds willingly collide, it can enable the emergence of new ideas, perspectives, unexpected slants on topics and problems. 

 

If you are participating in social venues like Twitter, consider this: let them kick you out of your comfort zone – expose your thoughts to the unwelcoming and find out other POVs – listen, think, process, learn, achieve something new. How else do new thoughts, creativity, innovation find life? How else do seemingly unrelated points take creative thinkers to new places? Colliding with seemingly disparate pieces of information, making unexpected connections, looking through the eyes of others. These acts may be ‘unfiltering’ – or a massively different kind of ‘filter’.

 

Ulrich Kraft, in “Unleashing Creativity”, writes about the processes that can lead to creative thinking and those that can inhibit:

Latent inhibition has a corollary: too much specialized knowledge can stand in the way of creative thinking. Experts in a field will often internalize “accepted” thought processes, so that they become automatic. Intellectual flexibility is lost. For example, a mathematician will very likely tackle a difficult problem in an analytical way common to her professional training. But if the problem resists solution by this method, she may well find herself at a mental dead end. She has to let go of the unsuitable approach.

 Creative revelations come to most people when their minds are involved in an unrelated activity. That is because the brain continues to work on a problem once it has been supplied with the necessary raw materials. Some psychologists call this mental fermentation or incubation. They surmise that associative connections between ideas and imagination that already exist in the mind become weaker and are transformed by new information.

This change of perspective allows for alternative insights and creates the preconditions for a fresh, and perhaps more creative, approach.

 

Context for the ‘Chaos’

In his “Servant of Chaos” blog, Gavin Heaton discusses the work of Steven Johnson:

Steven Johnson’s “Where Good Ideas Come From” reminds us that innovation, invention – or what he calls “the slow hunch” – require the time and space to collide with other ideas.

What if social networks reach a certain point and then begin to shrink? What if the noise to signal ratio becomes so large that we begin to partition ourselves and our interactions to those of “like mind”. Steven Johnson says “Chance favours the connected mind” – which I love. But what if those ideas swim around in ever shrinking ponds starved of oxygen by the blue-green algae of group think?

But now I feel we need to increasingly push ourselves outside of our internet comfort zones. We need to click those links randomly. We need to visit, search and read sites that are outside our narrow focused expertise. 

The “slow hunch” needs serendipity, to allow the opportunity for a particular “hunch” to collide with other hunches, other ideas, contradictory positions, radical thinking – whatever will serve to extend and grow the original germinating hunch into full-blown innovation that matters.

 

More from Steven Johnson:

Secondly we must diversify the inputs in our lives and institutions. This means surrounding ourselves (and filling our institutions) with individuals who have diverse sets of hobbies and interests, and fostering diverse social networks, where friends, peers and colleagues stretch a wide variety of vocations.

“By diversifying the inputs in your life, you create the possibilities for new connections to take root, and diverse multidisciplinary environments generate good ideas,” Johnson said. A virtuous circle is formed when such individuals converge, and where the coming together of intellectual and social diversity sparks creative and otherwise unconnected thoughts and perspectives

Johnson reminded the audience that innovation is not simply technology at work. It’s about openness. 

 

 

Stay Curious, My Friend

It’s important to remind ourselves to stay curious about the world around us, if we want to innovate, explore new ideas, be open to the unexpected in ways that could significantly change our lives and the work we do. The internet, including social venues, helps us to do that if we have the courage to tear down mental preconceptions (filters).

Try to indulge in the necessary lack of inhibition to allow creativity and innovation to emerge. It takes intellectual courage to think outside accepted principles and habitual perspectives such as “We’ve always done it that way,” or “My group wouldn’t want me to think that”. Try to retain a spirit of discovery, a childlike curiosity about the world. And question the ‘understandings’ that others consider obvious or de rigueur. Solve problems creatively, not “correctly”.

Surprisingly, distraction can be good – it can take you to fortuitous, unplanned places and people. For some, the Twitter firehose, the information overload, the cacophony of social conversations seems too fragmented to bear. But fragmentation of attention also takes the willing to exceptional experiences, to the missing pieces of a project or solution.  Adhering to too much filtering or sticking to familiar ‘expertise’ can lead to too much focus on one component, which can limit or block open and diverse thinking and experience, and inhibit innovation.

 

 

Related Links

A Smarter Edgier Collective: Business Technology Professionals on Twitter

I have a confession to make: I am a Hybrid

Internal Disruption–No Longer Business As Usual

 

  

About the author: Julie Hunt is an accomplished software industry analyst, providing strategic market and competitive insights. Her 25+ years as a software professional range from the very technical side to customer-centric work in solutions consulting, sales and marketing.  Julie shares her takes on the software industry via her blog Highly Competitive and on Twitter: @juliebhunt   For more information: Julie Hunt Consulting – Strategic Product & Market Intelligence Services

 

A Smarter Edgier Collective: Business Technology Professionals on Twitter

 

As a departure from my usual in-depth article I’m sharing my somewhat ‘social-logical’ thoughts on the community of business technology professionals on Twitter.

Twitter has many faces for its users. There is one Twitter where masses of people tweet about pop culture and everyday life. There are also the Twitter worlds of brand promotions and consumers. And then there are Twitter “collectives”, floating through the Twittersphere with distinct flavor and vigor, where certain “birds of a feather” come together.

One particularly strong “collective” swirls around business technology professionals. These tech professionals work with hardware and/or software, as: users, vendors, analysts, consultants, marketers, product managers, practitioners, writers, developers, critics, innovators. And most of these seemingly disparate professionals are continuously and serendipitously crossing paths on Twitter, in a way that was never possible before.

Of course, this tech professionals’ collective on Twitter is not formally organized nor does it need to be to result in effective communication and interaction. I like to think that the some of the propensity for technology folks to interact on Twitter has origins in software / hardware in “old school” developer communities, BBSs, and forums. “Special interest groups” within the tech professionals collective exist on Twitter (frequently marked by hashtags) – but mixing and interaction amongst all such groups are continuous and fruitful.

In mixing it up, software analysts are talking to social media agencies and practitioners, marketers to systems analysts and developers, big fish talking with not-so-big fish. Silos are being evaporated, as individuals are walking a bit in another professional’s shoes and seeing from another’s perspective. Twitter has been an extended and natural collaboration experience with open communicators, willing listeners, change agents and change acceptors. For these tech professionals, is Twitter becoming “collaboration as business process” that is essential to their professional endeavors?

As a collective, technology professionals take advantage of many activities, both organized and impromptu, that are possible on Twitter. Many lead and/or participate in chats or tweetjams via organized events, or jump in on lively exchanges that start with a couple of people. Connections and brainstorms spring up where impromptu conversations are usually open to all, with an almost stream-of-consciousness flow. Unexpected new relationships develop. When disparate worlds willingly collide, it can enable the emergence of new ideas, perspectives, unexpected slants on topics and problems.

 

Interactive Social Caretakers

On Twitter, each tech professional might be considered individual social caretakers or personal “community managers”. David Armano articulates how effectively trained community managers should posses the following seven qualities:

Articulate: Able to communicate effectively in a variety of media

Social: Engages in authentic conversations and interactions

Professional: Acts as a responsible ambassador of brand/org

Adaptable: Can make decisions quickly, handle crisis situations

Enthusiastic: Energetic, passionate and engaged in relevant topics

Connected: Has ties to the right people within the community

Organized: Can keep track of data, relationships, content calendars, and a variety of assets essential to maintaining community  

I find that this list captures the traits embodied by many of the tech professionals interacting on Twitter. The “communities” they manage permeate the collective.

 

Twitter as Social Intranet for Tech Professionals?

Looking at this loosely-organized Twitter collaboration phenomenon for tech professionals, is it reasonable to think of Twitter as an über Social Intranet for such professionals?  This would be a very public intranet but this Twitter intranet has much in common with the current fledgling social intranets behind the firewall.

Toby Ward describes a social intranet as:

An intranet that features multiple social media tools for most or all employees to use as collaboration vehicles for sharing knowledge with other employees. A social intranet may feature blogs, wikis, discussion forums, social networking, or a combination of these or any other Web 2.0 (intranet 2.0) tool with at least some or limited exposure (optional) from the main intranet or portal home page.

Intranets are places where an organization goes to find knowledge, experts, documents, discussions. If we consider the intermingled tweetstreams of the tech professionals collective as the “home page” or the gateway to the treasures of this “social intranet”, then a smörgåsbord of blogs, wikis, discussion forums, social networks, and so on are available to all of the collective. Indeed Twitter itself may be the ultimate open forum. The Twitter “social intranet” also reflects continuous change: unpredictable, dynamic, significant, evolving – allowing exchanges of unexpected information and opinion.

In his presentation on Social Intranets, Oscar Berg sees a shift to Value Creation, emphasizing Collaboration – Learning – Innovation – Relationships. Twitter interaction experiences encompass the tenets of Berg’s Value Creation as well as these points called out by Berg regarding the greater expectations people have for organizations:

• Fast response
• Accessibility
• Simplicity
• Freedom of choice
• Transparency & influence
• Need-driven

 

Holism through social networks and cultural change

If each tech professional on Twitter is their own community manager (and brand manager), and is participating in a social intranet super-structure, what sort of “social organization” describes the overall collective?

In the work that Jeremiah Owyang is doing on social businesses, he maintains that companies organize social in 5 ways: Centralized, Distributed, Coordinated, Multiple Hub-and-Spoke, and finally Holistic. Holistic is the least frequent in organizations where everyone uses social media equally and consistently across all organizations, somewhat as “social masters”, with the essential qualities of community managers.

The central notion of holism is that the whole ends up greater than the sum of the parts, meaning that something organically greater emerges. The tech professionals’ collective derives its organic strength from such parts as mutual respect, active listening, cross-culture, cross-geo, cross-functional to achieve a collaboration that is alive and kicking.

 

 

Related Links

Social collaboration in enterprise:The heart–and goal–of Community is “collaborating people”, not collaboration tools

 The Effective Intranet – Engaging the Employee as Customer

 Achieving the Social Business, Inside and Out

 

About the author: Julie Hunt is an accomplished software industry analyst, providing strategic market and competitive insights. Her 20+ years as a software professional range from the very technical side to customer-centric work in solutions consulting, sales and marketing.  Julie shares her takes on the software industry via her blog Highly Competitive and on Twitter: @juliebhunt   For more information: Julie Hunt Consulting – Strategic Product & Market Intelligence Services

 

Content Marketing Strategy for B2B Software Vendors: Starring the ‘New’ White Paper

 

For the past several years, multiple studies by different research firms have been conducted to evaluate the most sought-out and influential content for B2B technology customers during decision-making buying cycles, and every time, in every study, the #1 preferred content is the White Paper.

The white paper is the #1 most influential piece of collateral that technology purchasers consult when making or influencing a buying decision for their company, according to a recent survey by Eccolo Media

However, many B2B software vendors still are missing the boat with their use of white papers and have not employed them in ways to engage potential buyers, let alone convert them to customers.

  

In The Beginning…

Technology white papers find their origins in government briefs that were called white books, alluding to the plain white binding that was used. With the transformation to the technology white paper, experts, lead architects, systems designers used these documents to provide authoritative discussions of key ideas or technologies to show thought leadership and future direction. The classic white paper was very technical and dissertation-like, rich with in-depth details and research results.

Then something happened to white papers when many software companies began to generate them as “product collateral”. White papers were hijacked by many product marketing and marketing groups to directly promote products. Content became thinly veiled product brochures extolling the virtues of the software offerings, highlighting information favorable to the vendor. White papers became just another item in the checklist of collateral to generate for a product launch. Little strategic thinking or advance planning went into creating white papers, including the recruitment of a top tech professional to write the white paper. Well, guess what: software solution buyers do not like that kind of white paper.

 When asked what most disappointed in a white paper, poor writing ranked number one.

 One surprise in the findings – the respondents said they're more disappointed when a white paper doesn't contain enough technical information rather than when a paper contains too much.

 

 What Potential Buyers Want In Effective White Papers

Quality Quality Quality

Customers continue to call out high quality writing with accurate and useful content as top values for the white papers that they want to read and use. They want plenty of details (tech / business), which means content has to be: tight, clear, compelling, authentic.

The survey also found that the quality of report writing gets noticed. Some 86% of respondents felt that high-quality writing was at least moderately influential and 51% ranked good writing as either very or extremely influential. By contrast, poor quality writing was the most frequent reason respondents gave for decreasing the influence of a white paper.

 

Less Time to Consume Content

A lot of great content is constantly published on the web, due largely to constant brisk evolution of business needs and corresponding software solutions. Customers would like to consume a large variety of content, so they prefer shorter lengths for white papers. Shorter white papers also allow vendors to generate a constant flow of new content that also keeps pace with business and tech changes. According to most of the studies cited in this article, the ideal length of a white paper is 4-8 pages. (Tech Marketing Best Practices Research Series on white papers states that 86% of tech buyers want white papers under 10 pages.)

 

Buyers are proactive in the use of white papers:

How to Maximize the Use of White Papers in Your B2B Marketing and Sales Process, released by InformationWeek in February 2009. Its survey of 542 professional buyers found that 93% of IT buyers pass along up to half of the white papers they read/download, and that 54% of those surveyed contacted a vendor for more information after reading a white paper.

 

No Registration Please

When marketing groups co-opted the white paper another marketing staple was added: requiring buyer registration to be able to download the white paper. There is a strong buyer sentiment that vendor websites should not require any information from the buyer for any content downloads.  After all, the sales engagement is buyer-driven, with the buyer deciding when and if next steps will be taken.

A recent survey done by Spiceworks (SMB IT management resource site) addressed the issue of having to register for white papers:

We also found a lot of people – more than 75% – DON'T sign up for papers requiring registration, which means the vendor is missing the opportunity to share and disseminate their knowledge.

         How many (vendors) stopped requiring registration as the result of your survey?

A handful so far. The results are pretty staggering. When you remove the "registration wall," downloads go way up. One white paper that was offered without registration was downloaded 500 times in three days!

  

White Papers and Content Marketing Strategies

Potential buyers visit B2B corporate websites with the intent of finding all kinds of information that will help with purchase decisions. Buyers also look for vendor information on other web venues. It is critical for any vendors who see web presence as a key to success to build a strategy for content marketing. A content marketing strategy for B2B software vendors should focus on providing relevant, compelling, and frequently updated information for target markets and customers/buyers. A high quality white paper is a significant business asset for content marketing: quality content holds its value for reusability, engagement, impact, and vendor credibility.

Adam Needles: Content marketing is the architecture behind information exchanged with the buyer before we can get them to ’sales ready’; it is the rationalization of what content that our prospective buyers need at various stages of the buying cycle and via what media and channels; and it is integral to the nurturing process.  Content thus has moved from tactical to strategic.

 

Many B2B software vendors could benefit greatly from building a content marketing strategy around white papers. Don’t just produce single white papers in a reactive fashion, as a product launch checklist item done in a hurry. Plan, create and publish excellent white papers well in advance of any product launches.  B2B software vendors should be publishing white papers with high frequency (since customers want shorter white papers): set the stage for what your company does now and will do in future. Show authentic thought leadership, clear understanding of various customer needs and real problem-solving.

Publishing sets of “companion” white papers is a good idea for vendors targeting buyers with different perspectives such as business and tech buyers, and biz-tech composites. Some white papers can be created to bridge the gap between business and tech, to encourage collaborative definition of needs and problem-solving. Series of white papers that break down a complex topic can be an interesting approach as well. These approaches will show vendor commitment to helping customers understand current technology trends as well as provide guidance for solving problems or for becoming more competitive.

Beyond publishing great white papers is the opportunity for vendors to engage customers in conversations through social media, wherever customers participate. There already is a social aspect to downloaded white papers – customers have a high rate of sharing white papers. Tap into social media for interactive conversations with potential buyers and industry writers. On download pages include links to communities and forums to encourage discussion. Schedule Tweetjams for topics covered in white papers. Comment on blogs that address the topics of vendor white papers, not to directly promote the white paper, but to add to the brainstorm and show command of the topic.

 

Value of white papers for B2B software vendors:

 
 

   

The Right Industry Professional to Create White Papers for B2B Software Vendors

Keeping in mind that customers have made clear that they want high quality content with extensive tech details, it would make sense to work with a software industry professional with strong tech experience, business smarts, and who can articulate complex ideas clearly and authentically. This would be a professional who has worked with customers, understands both business and tech, has the ability to hold the interest of these readers. And of course, this professional has to be a really good writer.

White papers will benefit from a professional who has decent smarts for several software solution categories and who has good hands-on experience on the tech side of software. The business-technology professional should contribute rich insight, produce creative content and original thinking, see unexpected connections and future trends. Direct customer experience enhances an understanding of how tech will help customer competitiveness, and will enable writing from the customer POV.

Another very useful attribute of the right professional would be one who is inter-connected to individuals throughout the software industry: analysts, practitioners, consultants, writers, vendors. A professional who is in constant conversations with other industry SMEs will be up-to-date on key topics and trends, and will have resources at hand for research and confirmation. Quality white papers will result if the professional regularly writes software industry-related articles and blog posts, participates in new product briefings from various vendors and start-ups, and continually monitors several software solution spaces. A business-technology professional who is well-connected in social media can also provide guidance to vendors for content marketing strategies that target white papers and social media.

 

The ‘New’ White Paper:

• Reflecting studies cited: high quality and accurate content, plenty of deep details (tech / business), 8 pages or less which engenders content that is tight, engaging, well-written, inspiring
• Often written from the customer POV, using customer language
• Covers trends that matter: new solution segments – transitions of solutions
• Real takeaways that benefit customers whether they buy the vendor solution or not - vendor is associated with insight to solving problem, doing things in new way that is useful
• Inform, educate at sophisticated level to provide real depth
• Create companion white papers when different customer roles come into play for the topic (business, tech, hybrid/composite)
• Passion in the treatment: blogging has shown that writing about software solutions is more engaging if the writer inserts personality into the work – apply this to white papers when appropriate
• Provoke thought about the solution space: new thinking for addressing needs; provoke desire to find out more;  provoke a conversation that will lead back to the vendor
• Look into employing variety of buyer scenarios to connect customers to relevance of topic
• Infographics, tech details, guidelines, suggested reading, links to other resources (not necessarily on vendor site) – all add to value in buyer eyes
• Format for readability, flow, quick-scanning, engagement
• Publish on the distributed web – not just on corporate site but share on sites frequented by buyers
• Stir the pot: encourage social media conversations through blogs, Twitter, forums, communities, Facebook; also actively contribute comments on relevant blogs
• Not self-serving brochure-ware solely touting vendor offering – but can address issues that matter to buyers that generally could be solved with vendor’s offering

 

Related Links

SMB / Mid-Market B2B Software vendors - Findability + web presence + social: attracting the “customer as buyer”

I have a confession to make: I am a Hybrid

Goodbye Corporate Website – Hello Web Presence Management Framework?

 

  

About the author: Julie Hunt is an accomplished software industry analyst, providing strategic market and competitive insights. Her 20+ years as a software professional range from the very technical side to customer-centric work in solutions consulting, sales and marketing.  Julie shares her takes on the software industry via her blog Highly Competitive and on Twitter: @juliebhunt   For more information: Julie Hunt Consulting – Strategic Product & Market Intelligence Services

 

Influential Moving Target? -- Edelman’s Top Tweeting IT Analysts List

Jonny Bentwood of Edelman recently unveiled an example of Edelman’s approach to measuring influence on Twitter, utilizing the Edelman-branded TweetLevel tool. The list of Top IT Analyst Tweeters, initially published on July 21, consists of the top tweeters among the IT analysts who are active on Twitter. These analysts include individuals from large and small firms, consultants, SMEs, and even some firms and brand names.

 

A Curt Monash post, So who is an analyst anyway?, contributes a fine discussion of analyst services for technology vendors and buyers in a professional world that includes newer venues like social media. Monash also explores the notion of what qualifies a tech professional as an analyst. One point from Monash has particular relevance to the Edelman TweetLevel influencer work:

 

You need flexibility in how you deal with influencers.  Everybody is different

 

 

I conjecture that Edelman / Bentwood view this list of top tweeters as a test case / work in progress where they are fine-tuning calculations - and assumptions - while processing reactions, analyses and feedback.  They deserve props for jumping into the fray by publishing a list that results from evaluating a class of tweeters using their “influence” meter (TweetLevel). With so many calls for metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of many aspects of businesses, here’s a starting point for trying to determine levels of influence. It may evolve and mature into a useful tool -- if tested, tweaked and nurtured thoroughly. 

 

 

How do the calculations work?

 

The backbone of calculating the ratings of IT analyst tweeps is TweetLevel. TweetLevel can take daily influence temperatures that are tied to Twitter presence, based on 4 high-level attributes (as explained by Bentwood below):

 

1. Influence (What you say is interesting, relevant and many people listen)

2. Popularity (How many people follow you)

3. Engagement (You actively participate within your community)

4. Trust (People believe what you say)

 

 

Per Edelman, what constitutes a “top tweeter”, and potentially a top influencer, is described in the overview that explains the calculations on the TweetLevel site. The formula behind each TweetLevel rating for anyone on Twitter looks like this:

 

 

 

 

Jonny Bentwood comments on the calculations:

 

…as it happens the formula is all about being transparent. I can’t stand measurement tools that purely focus on popularity so have tried to be as open as possible about the inner works of how tweetlevel works. There is some real science and hard-core maths behind this if you want to dig deeper.

 

The full Bentwood post provides much more detail on the calculations, weightings of scores and methodology.

 

 

Anyone who tweets may visit TweetLevel to calculate current ratings based on the four attributes of Influence, Popularity, Engagement, and Trust. TweetLevel also provides comparison profiles to people included in an individual’s ecosystem of “friends”.

 

 

Personal Snapshots and Fluctuations

 

When first published July 21^st, the list stood at 1000, but two days later Bentwood added at least another 150 individuals, and then re-ran the TweetLevel ratings, which of course reset positions for many individuals. This change suggests the possibility of continuous updates for this list, perhaps on a daily basis. Such a list is dependent on the daily fluctuating nature of TweetLevel ratings, in turn based on the daily fluctuations of each participant’s Twitter activity. If maintained in this fashion, the Top Analyst Tweeters list would be in continuous flux, to a certain extent.

 

I’m in the list and was surprised by my inclusion. I’m a one-woman show for my consultancy, and while many years of a software industry market intelligence practice qualifies me as an analyst, I never really thought a lot about whether or not I’m an “influencer”. For a small consultancy, the Edelman list may help with visibility – to connect to more colleagues and potential clients. But am I a “top influencer” due to my presence on Twitter, or even through my professional writing and interactions? – I’m asking this while looking at the many very talented heavy-weights in the Top Tweeters list. Thorough study of Michael Wu’s marvelous work on influence would be quite helpful here.

 

After Bentwood replaced the original list of 1000 with the second version, and as I began to understand more about the nature of TweetLevel-measured “influence”, I decided to track my “TL influence” temperature over several days:

 

 
  
 

Like a game of musical chairs, the individuals in this list could continuously jostle one another for somewhat different positions relative to one another. Barring some major career-changing event (positive or negative), most of the participants may continue to hover in predictable plus/minus ranges near where each one is currently on the list, if Bentwood does not continue adding new individuals.

 

 

Analyst Influence On A Daily Basis?

 

How often should these ratings be rerun and published? Is that a helpful activity or just muddying the waters?

 

The flux of the TweetLevel approach is problematical but also to be expected for a work-in-progress. With this list of top IT Analysts on Twitter, we are not tracking a relatively shorter-lived entity like a Justin Bieber, where day-to-day popularity seems to matter. Bieber is currently the #1 TweetLevel “influencer” of all Twitter users, a position he has held for a while; Bieber’s overall influencer score is 95. The person in the #1 position on Bentwood’s list of top analyst tweeters is Jeremiah Owyang with an influencer score of 76.6.

 

Instead of tracking pop culture figures, Bentwood’s list of Analyst Tweeters covers highly-qualified and respected technology professionals whose influence and credibility emanates from a lot of work that occurs outside Twitter. Edelman’s TweetLevel measures Twitter attributes that are also impacted by influence earned elsewhere, sometimes subtly, from other actions and interactions involving these analysts. Yes, Twitter presence and worthwhile tweets are part of the story - but many people may follow these analysts on Twitter because of who they are and what they write in blogs or accomplish in client projects, not because of what they do each day on Twitter.

 

Does a particular analyst really have less influence during a day or even week of less activity on Twitter, than during the many days and weeks of constant activity? Not really. Call it “residual kharma” –  just because a well-known analyst that is a frequent Twitter contributor has taken a week or a month off, it doesn’t mean that all of the previous tweets suddenly have no influence. Nor does it mean that the anticipation of future tweets doesn’t carry influence across the break. Only if the analyst / influencer is absent from Twitter for a long periods of time, is influence likely to ebb a bit, until the analyst begins anew with tweets.

 

 

Vetting and Influence: Interested Parties

 

Who will be looking at a list like this? Most likely: buyers, vendors, other analysts, AR professionals, writers, consultants – pretty much anyone looking for guidance, assistance and forward-looking thinking regarding different segments of the technology industry.

 

®   While the notion of influence may matter more to AR professionals and vendors, a lot of people will still consult a list like this to understand more about whose work they want to follow or whose experience they want to enlist.  People and companies who are more attuned to Twitter may take this list more seriously, while others may think it trivial.

 

®   Does this approach help vendors identify analysts with influence?  In a very limited fashion, depending on the tweeting ability of each participant, there is a certain element of influence associated with analysts on Twitter. But to really assess “influence” and “reach”, there are lots of factors, including significant qualitative ones, that have to be evaluated as a whole.  Context of expertise for each analyst is the starting point – goals of the vendor also matter. There are great analysts who are influential but don’t make a lot of noise on Twitter.

 

®   From the buyer’s POV, are these fluctuating ratings helpful or distracting?  A list like this will draw buyers to look at certain analysts or consultants, but as for vendors above, many factors come into play to help buyers to decide on tapping a particular analyst for assistance.

 

®   AR Professionals are definitely interested in influence - take a look at a recent #archat on Twitter. I can see this list as particularly useful for introducing “new” players who are sharing information and opinion on Twitter. AR maestro Carter Lusher of Sage Circle has posted his take Technobabble 2.0’s Top Analyst Tweeters provides useful insights into visibility, but does not show who is influential where he concludes:

 

Bottom Line: Analyst influence is a complex condition that is the result of the interaction of business objectives, visibility, opinions expressed, client base, and so on. While a generic, mechanically-created list can provide useful input into a formal analyst list management process, such a list cannot measure actual influence.

 

 

Influence is still largely subjective and ephemeral. Reliability, credibility, expertise, integrity, top-notch work – all are probably more easily measured – but not necessarily as characteristics of Twitter presence. And reliability, credibility, expertise, integrity, and top-notch work are essential qualities of technology analysts and consultants who really make a difference for their clients and readers. To determine the ability of any analyst as a fit for a particular purpose requires looking at each individual’s body of work, knowledge and talent, original thinking, relationships to significant entities, and then evaluating how these attributes map to client needs and objectives.

 

 

 

Additional thoughts regarding influence, analysts who tweet, tech industry analyst practices:

 

§  Michael Wu’s series on Influencers

 

§  Twitter-based #archat on Influence, Analysts and AR professionals – transcript for the conversation

 

§  Vinnie Mirchandani - DealArchitect: More tenets for the next-gen analyst

 

§  Ray Wang: 7 Tenets of Building a Star Analyst Firm

 

§  Barbara French & Gideon Gartner: Advisory Industry Competition: Pushing Past ‘Business as Usual’    Part 1   Part 2    (also read the comments in each Part)

 

 

 

Related posts:

I have a confession to make:  I am a Hybrid

 

 

About the author: Julie Hunt is an accomplished software industry analyst, providing strategic market and competitive insights. Her 20+ years as a software professional range from the very technical side to customer-centric work in solutions consulting, sales and marketing.  Julie shares her takes on the software industry via her blog Highly Competitive and on Twitter: @juliebhunt   For more information: Julie Hunt Consulting – Market & Competitive Intelligence Services

 

 

 

NOT Listening as the fly on the wall - Experiencing Event Live-Tweeting

 

I thought I was going to simply listen in, as a fly on the wall – passively, quietly, undisturbed. Instead, I fell onto a fast-moving express lane when I began “sitting in” on the #scrmsummit event last week on Twitter.

 

I’m a new passenger on the Twitter ride (@juliebhunt) and I’ve never audited live-tweeting before.  It turns out that several people that I follow were attending the Social CRM Strategies for Business Seminar aka #scrmsummit. Of course this event, over many others, would be a good bet for some excellent Tweetsmanship, since most attendees are adept at social media usage and passionate about social topics.

 

Very briefly, SCRM is a relatively new embodiment of how businesses could do a much better job of supporting customers and of contributing to customer success, as part of the “customer experience lifecycle” with that company.  So the definition, ground rules and processes, best practices and strategies, are all currently evolving.  Listening in on the live-tweeting for #scrmsummit gave me the sense of witnessing a significant brainstorm session for further refining and understanding the near-future world of SCRM.

 

I didn’t really plan to monitor the tweetstream all day but found myself continuously drawn to the ongoing conversation. It was sort of like being there: updates on presentations and presenters, original propositions, collaborative thinking, high energy, even the “goofiness” that results from sitting in a room with a lot of people for a long time.  The live-tweeting introduced me to new voices tackling the very real issues of how companies could approach better ways to work with - and retain - customers.

 

Does Live-Tweeting Have Value?

Phil Soffer brings up a key question (with wit) regarding the role of live-tweeting at events:

@phsoffer:  Over 1,000 tweets in 3 hours at #scrmsummit! Is anyone listening, or is everyone just a better multi-tasker than I am?

For this particular event, I would say most of the tweeters were listening, not only to presenters but to other tweeters.  And just as any participant selectively listens to content, the same is true of the live-tweeters.  But with so many participants cruising the Twitter express lane, a good composite of the overall discussion emerges.  And thanks to Twitter, the discussion continues long after the event has ended and everyone has physically (and metaphorically) left the building.

 

On the other hand, live-tweeting can take on a cacophonous din at times – until you pick up on the rhythms of the main conversations and sub-conversations.  Best advice:  take a break from the tweetstream, then jump back in to pick up the latest threads. This is usually not difficult to do – after all you’re only dealing with 140 characters or less for each tweet.  And backtracking is easily done.

 

Further Impressions

· Love the stream of consciousness effect.

· Enjoyed seeing the “birth” unexpected connections. Some of the results may or may not hold up after further examination, but they are still creative starting points that may lead to other useful destinations.

· Lots of engaged people connecting through Twitter may be greatest value.

· The success of live-tweeting obviously is very dependent on the abilities of those tweeting to produce quality content. And it’s important to remember that the tweeter is providing his/her impression of the information being presented at the event. However, RTs by other attendees help substantiate the accuracy of the tweets.

 

 

Transcript of Live-Tweets Augments Value

Esteban Kolsky @ekolsky very kindly published pdfs for the two days of live-tweeting which are now valuable (and searchable) archives for identifying attendees, thoughts, content links, and a captured instance of the event flow itself.  Obviously there are other Twitter-oriented tools that make the live-tweet content available as well.

 

The day I audited the live-tweeting, I wondered whether some of the tweets were isolated “gems” cut loose from larger context and therefore of limited value.  The transcript actually ties all the tweets together with greater coherence and context. In this case, the tweeters were up to the task of creating tight meaning in 140 characters, partially due to the high energy of the event and also the domain expertise of the attendees.

 

Among many thought-provoking tweets:

@mfauscette: @CRMStrategies for me social biz transformation is about changing culture, the tools are only 1 of the facilitators of change #scrmsummit

 

@elliotross:  The kimono is, and will remain, open! (so be buff!) @drnatalie #scrmsummit #scrm #customerservice  [regarding requisite transparency of social businesses in response to customer-centricity]

 

@drnatalie: gaming industry changed the game of business. personalization is derivative of personalizing games #scrmsummit #scrm

 

@mkrigsman: Influential blogs don't push products but share intelligence and expertise - this will eventually become the norm #scrmsummit

 

@wimrampen: Sales is often in the blind.. provide them with context on the Customer's journey as to have intelligent conversation #scrmsummit

If you are interested in the #scrmsummit transcripts: http://bit.ly/SCRMSummit01   http://bit.ly/SCMSummit02

 

Final Thoughts

Here it is a week later and I have gone back through the transcripts and am surprised by the coherence of the tweetstream.  The other unexpected effect is that the energy of the live-tweeting (a week ago) washed over me again. The tweets still make sense and context is clear. 

 

From the overall experience, I have new connections and a valuable archive, and have found new forums for further monitoring. The generous sharing of the experience by the many attendees is much appreciated by me and many others who audited the live-tweeting.

 

I didn’t intend to travel the express lane but am glad that I was caught up by this particular ride.

 

 

About the author: Julie Hunt is an accomplished market intelligence analyst, providing strategic market and competitive insights for the software industry. Her 20+ years as a software professional range from the very technical side  to customer-centric work in solutions consulting, sales and marketing.  Julie shares her takes on the software industry via her blog Highly Competitive and on Twitter: @juliebhunt   For more information: Julie Hunt Consulting – Market & Competitive Intelligence Services