the sequence of what's next
Fred Wilson is in the want of a new dimension:
Outlook is for calendaring, e-mail and contacts, Word for writing..., appropriately termed as islands/ghettos. Now such stuff moves online, "connecting islands in a browser".
Then he asks "What's next?".
In my old paper based calendar I penned in a meeting, when, where, with whom.
Today I click on a date and type in a meeting, when, where, with whom.
As a kid I wrote a letter, addressed it, mailed and waited for a response.
Today I write a mail, address it, mail and wait for a response.
All in a single browser if so inclined.
Wow, such amazing progress. Or as Fred puts it - "Big deal...".
If I set a meeting next week I will have to find a flight, book it, reserve a hotel room, get tickets. Then, post-meeting I will file an expense report, write a report that I'll send out per mail that will result in responses that will lead to another meeting that will produce another report...
A flow. Everything is a flow. And a flow consists of events and tasks and transactions and instructions in sequence and/or loops and forks. A meeting on it's own have no meaning, a meeting as a part of a natural flow has meaning. Ditto for a mail. Ditto for a report. Ditto for everything.
Reality is a flow, why not reflect that in all programs and systems and applications?
That's the next.
Flow on, sweet afton. More at http://www.focusedperformance.com/2005_08_01_blarch.html#112445463524783762
Posted by: Frank Patrick | August 19, 2005 at 02:56 PM
Why would anyone with an existing IT infrastructure consider this? Rip and replace? Not going to happen - in my lifetime. Enough problems sorting out existing business process flows - and there are plenty of contenders out there for this approach. But there's more...
Posted by: dahowlett | August 25, 2005 at 01:13 PM
Dennis,
firms take huge write-offs when they sack a few thousands in order to outsource. The same can invest huge amounts in production facilities.
Both for mere single-digit savings, mostly...
Changing the "way one does stuff" has much bigger promise in savings as well as in revenues... did enybody mention the popular term of innovation? Yet another strain of "how we do stuff"..
That said the question does not boil down to costs, it's when they see the gain it might happen. And as always, if somebody is the first one - and have success - then the flock follows, costs be damned.
As to software; a process flow as in "who does what next" within one department (say CRM), production or semi-company-wide is not enough. It has to include the capture of data, dynamic use of resources and be truly organisation (and beyond) wide to be a real flow. Add "dynamism" as the organisation learns, just like a riverbed, then the number of contenders narrows down to... ehh.. nil?
Posted by: sig | August 25, 2005 at 02:24 PM