Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Enterprise Web 2.0 - Fad vs. Utility


Published on

Luke Kowalski and Jeremy Ashley from Oracle will discuss what happens when Web 2.0 user interfaces are adapted to the enterprise. Social networking, hosted exchanges, and individual empowerment are married with concerns about security, scalable performance, group policy and quality of information.

Enterprise user experience brings with it unique challenges such as longer design cycles and need to understand specialized domains. But users still expect the same ease of use and web 2.0ish features as in the consumer space. A person using flickr for personal photographs now wants to tag catalog content in the procurement application, or use web-based collaboration on a proposal. Jeremy and Luke Kowalski will describe a day in the life of an enterprise user experience designer. They will discuss tools that embed design patterns, UI donations and standards, and management process challenges, as well as illustrate the upcoming transition to the Web 2.0 Enterprise at Oracle.

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Enterprise Web 2.0 - Fad vs. Utility

  1. 1. The following is intended to outline our general product direction. It is intended for information purposes only, and may not be incorporated into any contract. It is not a commitment to deliver any material, code, or functionality, and should not be relied upon in making purchasing decisions. The development, release, and timing of any features or functionality described for Oracle’s products remains at the sole discretion of Oracle.
  2. 2. Web 2.0 + Enterprise = Web.Overdrive Jeremy Ashley, Applications UX VP Luke Kowalski, Corporate UI Architect
  3. 4. Long Tail
  4. 5. Overview <ul><li>Consumer vs. Enterprise UX – same, but different? </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 – Sorting out what is utility, and what is a fad </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 Enterprise Dimensions-special considerations, adaptations, and rethinking user needs </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 Components – Enterprise Classifications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Examples </li></ul></ul>
  5. 6. Enterprise vs. Consumer User Experience <ul><li>Examples of Enterprise Applications: Retail, Point of Sale, Procurement, Human Resources, Content Management, CRM, Application Server, Telco, Tax, Shop Floor, Identity Management, Database monitoring and tuning, developer tools, etc… </li></ul><ul><li>User Profile and Unique Characteristics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enterprise users carry the same expectations as consumers (computers at work and at home) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enterprise users do not need to be entertained or held captive on a page. They have regulations, performance, efficiency, and business goals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design cycles are longer, domains deeper, and total cost of ownership matters more when heterogeneous / multiple applications, systems, and hardware are involved </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3 distinct navigation models: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Known task, known path (Self Service) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Known task, unknown path (Directed) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Unknown task, unknown path (Exploratory) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 7. Web 2.0 Components <ul><li>Content Aggregation - Mash-ups, RSS feeds, other unstructured data </li></ul><ul><li>UI Platform - Rich Internet Applications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Blended desktop and Web UX -Desktop Integration </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Search -Semantic Web and….As Navigation -Back to the command line? </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration or network effects mechanisms: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tagging / Bookmarking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wikis, Blogs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Grid and Community Computing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Shared Tools and Standards- -Web 2.0 Enterprise and Standards (SOA, XML,REST interfaces, etc.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Design Pattern repositories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IDEs and Business Process Modelers </li></ul></ul>
  7. 8. What is Web 2.0? <ul><li>An interesting set of features, but….. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Also a victim of its own hype ( Fad vs. usefulness) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Can a company buy Web 2.0? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 and 3.0 etc are not actual things, but are sets of progressive features </li></ul></ul><ul><li>For Web 2.0 in Enterprise, the question becomes: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Should we “port” web 2.0 concepts to the enterprise “as is”? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Should we rethink the use cases, the new medium, and the needs of this particular user type? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Is it really just a product perception/marketing/messaging issue </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Any feature or concept has to have real value to customer/user </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Governance, security policy, and intelligent information filtering serve as drivers </li></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 9. Hype vs. End User Utility <ul><li>Web 2.0 has already become ironic (not iconic) </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 creates the infrastructure to support its own hype (Blogs etc) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Trends often pundit driven </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 generates much more content, and allows anyone at any level to get in the discussion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This leads to quality issues (fact vs. opinion) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Search and navigation (sheer volume of noise paralyzes discussion) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Freedom of speech / limitless empowerment do not always work in hierarchical structures </li></ul></ul>
  9. 10. ‘Me’ Media and the Enterprise <ul><li>Is social networking useful to the Enterprise? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If the approach is how can we use myspace in our apps, then no </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If the approach is how can we generate a community to help support each other and business goals and information refinement, then yes. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Who vets the quality of the content? </li></ul><ul><li>Do Enterprises want to have unstructured processes? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We do have to manage unstructured information in addition to structured information (schemas / DBs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Example: Intranet blogosphere – democracy rules? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Accountability, HR, Audit trails, regional rules </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  10. 11. Web 2.0 Enterprise Bloopers <ul><li>You could rate your fellow employees for appraisals. Give them stars and rating like netflix </li></ul><ul><li>Release training on Youtube. Competitive and monetization issues? </li></ul><ul><li>Recruiters go to your myspace profile as a reference. Pictures from a college party? </li></ul><ul><li>Employees pick (Digg!) next assignment from catalogue. Everyone wants “architectural vision” for their project… </li></ul>
  11. 12. Next Generation Survey Enterprise Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies The McKinsey Quarterly conducted this survey in January 2007 and received responses from 2,847 executives worldwide, 44% hold C-level positions. <ul><li>>75% plan to maintain or increase their investments that encourage user collaboration, social networks, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>66% regret not boosting their capabilities to exploit these new technologies. More executives said they should have acted faster. </li></ul>Executives Worldwide: But…..
  12. 13. Next Generation Technologies The McKinsey Quarterly conducted this survey in January 2007 and received responses from 2,847 executives worldwide, 44% hold C-level positions. Use or Planning to Use
  13. 14. Web 2.0 + Enterprise dimensions <ul><li>Enterprise dimensions for examples that will follow </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Security </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scalability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compliance (SOX, Accessibility, Internal Business Process Audits) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Licensing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monetization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Structured + Unstructured Data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integration (hosted, proprietary, client server, 3 rd party) </li></ul></ul>
  14. 15. Web 2.0 Enterprise Use Cases <ul><li>Content Management, structured and unstructured groups collaborating on projects, rankings, but controlled by corporate policies and business rules </li></ul><ul><li>Hosted Intra-company exchanges and the supply chain-catalogues and trading communities </li></ul><ul><li>Editable portals, where disparate content and mash-ups are possible with standards-based tools and open, robust interfaces </li></ul><ul><li>Custom business intelligence dashboards- by combining structured and unstructured data </li></ul><ul><li>Mobile tagging- field service (factory inspection / QA / QC) </li></ul><ul><li>Rich client financial UIs for information visualization of financial predictions, models, or mash ups of external statistical data sources </li></ul><ul><li>Flexible user task flows, as enabled by declaratively defined business processes (SOA Architectures) </li></ul><ul><li>Support Knowledgebases including internal and external content </li></ul><ul><li>Hosted and Contextual help systems with Meta Search capabilities </li></ul>
  15. 16. Content Aggregation <ul><li>Consumer -> Enterprise translation issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Licensing- Mash-ups (Consumer vs. Enterprise License) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cannot package random content - Type of licenses (GPL 2,3, MPL, etc.), IP/indemnity, litigation limits, and other issues. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stability of Third Party Components –Need for Service Level Agreements for mashed up portlets, performance/load guarantees </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reconciliation of enterprise vs. web economic models (Number of transactions vs. click-throughs vs. license and support pricing). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Channel and Reseller relationships associated with mash-ups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understanding data and context vs. screen scraping. Role of Business Intelligence engines. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Web Service / SOA Model for mash-ups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Security- Single Sign-on for heterogeneous portlets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance Monitoring tools – correlating metrics, understanding thresholds </li></ul></ul>
  16. 17. Web 2.0 Content Agregation Notifications Email Documents Discussions Personal / Group Spaces Presence Preferences Search Recent Favorites
  17. 18. Salesforce mash-up
  18. 19. UI Platform-Rich Internet Applications <ul><li>Rich Client is a transition back to desktop UI metaphors, independent of Web 2.0. Customers need higher screen density, modality, fewer clicks and refreshes, all in order to complete a task in a more efficient manner </li></ul><ul><li>Enterprise Translation Considerations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enterprise deployment issues around too fat of a client. IT updates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hosted Applications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance and Accessibility of rich client UIs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Desktop Integration </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Losing the cross-platform religion? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integration of enterprise apps and desktop applications through open standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hybrid between desktop and Web apps- AJAX Gadgets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Web Security vs. Local system resource security </li></ul></ul><Insert Picture Here>
  19. 20. Flash and Rich Client (JSF) Mash-ups
  20. 21. Zimbra rich client
  21. 22. Rich Client and Desktop Integration
  22. 23. Data Model View Data Control JSR 227 Web Services Portlets JSF Applications SIP Web 2.0 Services Architecture Portlets Content Search Discussions WiKis VoIP Meta-data Portlet Assembly Content Integration Search Discussions Dynamic Editing Communication Customization JSF TaskFlows Controller JSF Applications Standards-based Portals Portlet Bridge Business Processes
  23. 24. Search <ul><li>Search as navigation (In addition to browsing) </li></ul><ul><li>Federated results </li></ul><ul><li>Semantic Web (Visualizations of Structured and Unstructured Data) </li></ul><ul><li>Search, as used for problem resolution and help systems </li></ul>
  24. 25. Search, cont.’d (MySpace for the office, VisiblePath-corporate entity relationship and internet search (IBM blog)
  25. 26. Social networking & collaboration <ul><li>Tagging </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improves Quality and Accuracy of Information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Next generation self service user model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Examples: Unused inventory passed over to ebay, tagging CRM content, discussion groups, desktop documents in CMS systems, knowledgebase articles and patches, employee blogs and podcasts </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Wikis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Perfect for support systems, project management, bridging artificial organizational structures </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Grid and Community Computing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Virtual allocation of hardware and software resources for any community slice. Resource optimization </li></ul></ul>
  26. 27. Tagging Content
  27. 28. Collaborative Communities
  28. 29. Mash-ups with Context (Permissions/Function Security)
  29. 30. Shared Tools <ul><li>Design Patterns-Glorified Guidelines? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not if shared (JSF, Open Ajax donations) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not if embedded in tools (JDev) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Making mash-ups and other Web 2.0 constructs easy to build for analysts vs. developers </li></ul><ul><li>Allows user a greater degree of personalization in how they work </li></ul><ul><li>IT Tools </li></ul>
  30. 31. Spectrum of Design Patterns Ability to Re-use Increases Quality, Consistency, Usability Style Sheet Icons Checkbox Colors Spacing Name&Address Header/Detail Tables Rich Export Search Collaboration Document Management Communities Presence Navigation Complex Tasks Guided Steps Notifications Questionnaires Work Areas Interruptions Size , Complexity, Utility Elements Components Services Paradigms
  31. 32. Design Pattern Example
  32. 33. Web 2.0 Content Integration-Visual Application Development
  33. 34. Editable and customizable business flows
  34. 35. Monitoring mash up and visualization
  35. 36. Enterprise Web 2.0 Best Practices <ul><li>The best of the consumer realm, with policy, security, and scale </li></ul><ul><li>Literal translations from consumer to enterprise seldom successful </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consider user needs (ethnography, wants and needs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Productivity vs. Social Goals (Enterprise/Consumer) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consider drivers (business goals and regulatory pressures vs. advertising and eyeballs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open standards and flexible tools are the enabling paradigm for collaboration and content aggregation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Users want to find…They do not care what is structured and what is unstructured data (Bridge) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboration with flexible and adaptable controls </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Good design makes or breaks enterprise or consumer features, regardless of fad vs. utility ratio…… </li></ul></ul>
  36. 37. <Insert Picture Here> User Experience at Oracle <ul><li>Over 200 usability engineers, designers, and support personnel </li></ul><ul><li>5 User Experience groups </li></ul><ul><li>Global (India, UK, US) Usability labs occupying thousands of square feet, digital video, remote labs, and streaming servers. </li></ul><ul><li>Corporate mandate, accountability, and UCD-inclusive development process </li></ul><ul><li>Direct and Indirect connections to end users, decision makers, and a role during the formative stages of the software development process </li></ul><ul><li>Integration mechanism for UX M&A </li></ul><ul><li>More Info: and </li></ul>