If you give a group of C-suite executives a list of bad things to choose from and tell them to arrange them in order of bad-to-worse, like a tally of "Brady Bunch" episodes, does the one...
I'm already on record as somewhat skeptical about enterprises deploying yet another chief something-or-another officer. One key reason is that it isn't exactly clear who has responsibility for what initiative.
Most business models based around the distribution of content online rely upon your ability to find it, which is leveraged on relevance. There's a growing movement to define relevance for oneself.
One of the breakthrough characteristics of cloud dynamics in the enterprise was supposed to have been the pooling of resources across various departments and the subsequent breaking down of silos.
Reassuring members of the Cisco faithful last week that his company's in the collaboration business as something more than a hobby, the CEO outlined his goals for ending remote conferencing as we know it.
Just a few years ago, BlackBerry Messenger was one of the most populated chat systems on the planet due to so many people owning BlackBerry phones. Now BB needs a collaboration service just to bring people back.
In the 1990s, Lotus was for a time the undisputed champion of corporate e-mail and scheduling. It's too late for IBM to resurrect Notes at this point, but maybe the time is right for a new composition.
Wouldn't it be nice if the skilled professionals who comprise the hosted online service industry were to coalesce behind sharing their skills? Sure, but does such a coalition really need--or want--an enemy?
The company's chief evangelist for reducing the consumption of the same resources that "Xerox machines" once ate for lunch, defends the document management system as a behavior-changing tool.
The electronic document company's latest system for acquiring and sharing documents depends on users' willingness to convert them all by means of a printer driver. How well has that worked before?