April 30 2008 Conference Call
- 1 Conference Call Notes
- 2 IRC
- 3 Other Calls
- 4 Attendees
- 5 Previous Action Items
- 6 Notes
- 6.1 Enterprise Sales
- 6.2 Munich
- 6.3 Vision Committee (Dean)
- 6.4 Standards Committee (Joe)
- 6.5 Organization Committee (Doc)
- 6.6 Usage Committee (Adriana)
- 6.7 Compliance Committee (Iain)
- 6.8 Wiki Tech Report
- 6.9 Events
- 6.10 Open Discussion
- 6.11 Action Items
- 7 Next Meeting
Conference Call Notes
Drafted by Joe Andrieu, April 30, 2008
#vrm at chat.freenode.net
Other CallsCategory:conference call
- Joe Andrieu
- Dean Landsman
- Doc Searls
- Iain Henderson
- Christopher Carfi
- Charles Andres
- Deb Schultz
- Brett McDowell
- Renee Lloyd
- Adriana Lukas
Previous Action Items
What do we need to be saying to Enterprises to get them on board?
Chris kicks off: If we are going out there, who are we approaching? And what problem are we going to solve. Probably one of three:
Business side or IT. Business side owns more budget... so, what are we bringing and what problems are we solving for marketing and sales.
Deb: Whether they call it CRM or not, how they reach out to the customer.
Chris: So, we start with the business/sales conversation at the VP level and that gets handed off to IT for implementation. That's the historical approach, which would mean conversations about integration with Oracle, SAP, etc.
Deb: It might be interesting, given my work at P&G, to have a call to approach these data entry points such as Enterprise 2.0 and the database marketing folks. Talk to them and get some feedback.
Doc: Is what big companies are looking for technical at all? Such as we need to tweak our Seibel, etc., or is it conceptual at this point? And what is the difference?
Iain: I think you need to separate it into two types of businesses. Online companies that get it and offline companies that aren't quite there yet. It's about finding that individual that gets it.
Doc: is it just a matter of getting a conversation going?
Deb: Yes. Where we are with VRM... I've been with P&G for a long time. It's just slow. What is the right pain point VRM solves? Is it through marketing? Is it through IT? Is it from who owns the customer contact or who owns the back-end? So let's talk to some folks and take it from there.
Doc: Perhaps we can arrange some calendar/travel coordination so that Doc can get some facetime with one of these guys. How about at iCitizen thing in Ohio.
Deb: Sure. They'll be there.
Brett: Another approach is through infrastructure vendors. So, putting VRM as another application of existing technologies. We are generating external buzz, when companies start investigating this, they are going to start asking their software and integration vendors. So, showing alignment between VRM and traditional technologies is a way to breach the enterprise.
Doc: As we fill out our portfolio of tools that live on the customer side, and those that live on the vendor side, and the new pieces of the puzzle that live on both sides, it would be nice to diagram some of that out. It gets a little complicated. What do we add to CRM, what do we add to a webservice framework? What do we add to a mailing list system? I've talked to folks at SAP about this sort of thing. There are going to be large providers of software and software consulting that are going to be recommending pieces that we provide or pieces that we put together.
Brett: At IIW, that's what Paul Madsen was diagramming.
Doc: Yes, that was one just one specific use case: Change of Address. There's also an opportunity to look at where the conversations are happening. A large part of what happened with IBM aligning with Open Source was a matter of putting a lot of stuff on the table. Going into customers and telling them we're going to help you find and manage all your SAML service. The most important relationships are actually personal. So what can we do that helps existing providers helps their customers. Not just in terms of a single use case, but to look at how the Enterprise side is organized now and how we change things.
Deb: I'm seeing a lot of realignment around Web Services.
Brett: I think we should figure out what it means to be compliant. Once we figure that out, we can talk with folks about it.
Good unconference. About 12 participants, so a bit small, but good participation. Doc's virtual attendance worked pretty well.
There was some interesting feedback from Paul Whitehouse, pro VRM, but down on the Identity conference, mostly from a cultural perspective, i.e., corporate bias and thinking.
There was an interesting dance of language co-opting by large companies (using VRM memes to present their vision), and the need for us to discover how we fit into large companies' view and language around VRM.
Also, excellent support from Kuppinger Cole. They see VRM as the killer app for identity, as a way to explain to companies how to leverage identity management for a paradigm shift.
Vision Committee (Dean)
Standards Committee (Joe)
(mostly reported after the call as the committee reports were excised from the agenda during the call)
Asa Hardcastle has requested and been invited to join the committee. I think we can also get Paul Downey to join. He was very interested in supporting the development of the Personal Address Manager.
Iain Henderson is working on a rev of a Customer Journey through the PAM, which will be integrated into the spec.
We anticipate both an introductory session and a working session at IIW later this month.
Organization Committee (Doc)
Brett: Stewardship requires representational governance and we need to figure out how that works with Berkman. Doc: What does that mean? Brett: If there are ten of us on this call, and ten of us care, then each of us votes. That's representational, as opposed to one party on the call that listens to folks and then decides.
Usage Committee (Adriana)
Compliance Committee (Iain)
Brett & Iain will take the VRM Maturity Model and the benchmarking work Iain has done to date to come up with a draft statement of what it means to be VRM compliant.
Joe: Somewhere we need to clarify how technical compliance with proposed future standards (relbutton and PAM, for example) fits into principles compliance.
Wiki Tech Report
Technical problems during the unconference have apparently gone away. But there are still some bugs. Doc will try to work through Dean's current issues.
Sees themselves as followers, as in following what the rest of the world is doing and adopting it into their grab bag. Very interested in getting something up and working in the intermediate with Apple and iTunes. Doc would like to see that packaged and ready for implementation before presenting to Apple.
http://vocolo.org is a station, but is mostly online. Very user driven. Where the listeners and producers are often the same people. They have an audience and are growing and they are open to experiments.
Doc shares that Keith is concerned about centralized systems in general. His own preference is to create fully decentralized systems, or essentially decentralized systems, where there can be a centralized service--such as RSS ping servers--but which aren't defined by their centralized nature. Keith sees this as a big win for the rel-button.
Dean: for commercial radio, we might be able to help them meet certain social obligations by using the rel-button to fund raise for non-profits.
Doc: we need to set up a number of meetings to work this out. We have a bit of an assignment.