January 28 2009 Conference Call: Difference between revisions

From Project VRM
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 54: Line 54:


But some of the players only want to back a disruption that they can win. So, we have to present the opportunity to be the winner in this new market without actually empowering that explicitly--we don't want to create a new monopolist.
But some of the players only want to back a disruption that they can win. So, we have to present the opportunity to be the winner in this new market without actually empowering that explicitly--we don't want to create a new monopolist.
===VRM website===
Working to get the site moved over. http://www.projectvrm.net


===Agenda===
===Agenda===

Revision as of 13:07, 28 January 2009

Conference Call Notes

Drafted by Joe Andrieu, January 28, 2009


IRC

#vrm at chat.freenode.net

Other Calls

Category:conference call

Attendees

  • Joe Andrieu
  • Dean Landsman
  • Iain Henderson
  • Drummond Reed
  • Doc Searls
  • Alan Mitchell
  • Charles Andres

Notes

Principles

Doc is working on it. It keeps getting closer, even though it has been "the next few days" for a while now... Cluetrain is done and to the publiser. That helped get the principles locked down and is now off of Doc's plate.

NPR Tuner

Nice exercise in getting a bunch of technologies working together. Asa Hardcastle and Markus Sabadello are helping out. Good to have geeks talking to geeks getting stuff made. If we have any problems, it will most likely be political, with the rallying of stations and NPR central.

Face to Face

Trying to lock down a venue.

Stanford in the spring? March 2nd, 3rd, 4th. (M/T/W) Following IIW structure. 1/2 day Monday, baselining, project Briefs. Two full days T/W Dinners M/T

VRM.org

Meeting re: VRM.org with Andy Updegrove in Boston. Who has probably been involved in many many things like this.

Graham Hill

A few cycles sucked away responding to his slam: The four failings of VRM. http://www.customerthink.com/blog/four_fallacies_vendor_relationship_management He took VRM as sort of a socialist planned economy thing, which is wrong. So Doc responded explaining why: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vrm/2009/01/25/a-little-understanding-goes-a-short-way/

CRM / VRM Workshop

Have a conference? Risks? What happens when the big providers come in.

Something towards a qualified sales lead is sort of the best output of VRM into CRM.

How quickly could we have a draft specification in place?

The purpose of a workshop would be to make things work. To get people together to work out the details.

In the beginning it should be a small add on to the systems from Oracle and SugarCRM. It's the kind of system that they should say "Of course, we'd love to have that." (Where they is both the software vendor and the software client).

But some of the players only want to back a disruption that they can win. So, we have to present the opportunity to be the winner in this new market without actually empowering that explicitly--we don't want to create a new monopolist.

VRM website

Working to get the site moved over. http://www.projectvrm.net

Agenda

  1. Standards Committee

Upcoming Calls

  • Thursdays 10:30AM PST: R-button
  • Tuesdays 1:30PM PST: ListenLog
  • Alternating Wednesdays (Next 1/21) 10AM PST: Standards committee call

Next Meeting

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/projectvrm/?title=January_28_2009_Conference_Call&oldid=3263"