I’m using Excel 2008 on the Mac, though I also regularly use 2007 for Windows.

The reason I think it’s useful is a. the real world doesn’t look like an excel sheet, so it’s easier to grasp a more visual representation of the numbers.

And b. while it’s fairly easy to just create some adjustable variables at the top, it seems a lot more intuitive to just drag modules together and have the end result depicted visually as well.

I will end up giving a presentation on this anyway, so skipping the step of adding the data to Visio or similar would be nice.

- You have a list of items with associated costs in Excel.

- You want to arrange items hierarchically. Only one layer deep? Multiple layers deep?

- You have a number of possible scenarios, each with a corresponding chart object; you want the worksheet updated as you add and remove children.
Do you need to be able to create a chart from an existing scenario?
Do you want to be able to modify the chart structure by editing the worksheet?
If multiple layers deep, how would this be represented in the worksheet?

- The cost of a parent node is the sum of its child node costs.

What is the reason for wanting to do it this way – to make it easier to compose scenarios, or to have pretty representations of existing scenarios, or something else?

What version of Excel are you using – looks like 2003?

Whether or not Buzz is the_new_thing is a completely different question. It feels a lot like Facebook, which too is incompatible with feeding lots of geeky stuff to it. I'm still doing it though with all the reputation hazards that entails.

P.S. we should definitely keep the related posts + really like the new feedburner integration with Twitter, which I'm using now on my twitter and will use with @techiteasy as soon as I figure out who is feeding tweetbfeeder to it (not me).

There has to be a differentiation between something your do work on and something you get information from! Informational sites are great for tabbed browsing, because we all have ADD. Work-sites/apps are not, because ADD goes against any kind of productivity.

In this regard, I think only Google had the foresight to develop a browser for the modern web. Meanwhile, Mozilla has totally forgotten the roots of Firefox and keeps adding things like Personas paving the way for yet another Bloatzilla.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by Techiteasy: Enterprise 2.0 : the end of office politics ?: I have been thinking about this topic for a while now. Enterprise … http://bit.ly/9u0MtU...

That's a strange post. I don't think there is any reason for you to apologize.

I understand your ambivalent feeling towards programming. Programmers can sometimes be complacent as a) they have built the virtual world we all are enjoying on an everyday basis and b) the master the literacy required to navigate and change this virtual world.

I guess the main difference comes from the fact that you see this activity through the business value lens.

Programmers mostly don't. Most of the time the real traction behind their work comes from the will to change the world (think open source).

Some of them focus on business and making money (think 37Signals) but my bet is that they are a minority.

Thanks you so much for the compliment. Coming for you it rate it even more.

As a manager if you show me an activity and knowledge map with an IT system that will eventuall cover the whole thing I would feel rather upbeat than upset.

But you're right, security is one of the main issues of E20 adoption and funnily enough, probably one of the most efficiently monitored risk.

I know you like e-mail, but again e-mail is not a platform (so you're only left with SS which is not so sexy). e-mail is point to point, not shareable platform, helps in diseminating and demultiplying updated sources of information. It's not searchable and it's not meant to persist data.

So e-mail would be a Social Software Channel (SSC).

Talking about market change and all that, I don't think it will be a great idea to make systems that absorb market changes in real time. This is slightly outside the topic but I would recommend you probably the best read of the week : http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2010/02/the_real_roots...

E20 will help in having conversation back into the enterprise, bringing people back to their social and human selves. Absorbing instant market changes is outside the scope of it, hopefully.
My recent post Positioning with other IT systems: the liquid nature of Enterprise 2.0

As I mentioned, I think that things like email have long fulfilled a social networking function in enterprises, allowing for person X in the CRM dept. to communicate with person Y in SCM, and they can exchange thoughts. That is pretty SSP (minus the emerging) to me.

As for the idea of ESSP, I like a lot that it's meant to be liquid. The way enterprise software should work is that it allows for many linkages between different areas of a company. If markets change, resources must be allocated to adapt products and supply chains instantly. So that is E2.0 or 3.0 to me.
My recent post Positioning with other IT systems: the liquid nature of Enterprise 2.0

I won't get upset by your writings. First I don't consider myself a geek. I admire geeks, I sometimes wish I was one, but I'm not. Second I kind of agree eventhough I think you sound a bit complacent with the code monkeys stuff.

Geeks are not only interested in developing code. They're insterested in harnessing the whole IT thing. Which involves coding but also security, networks, operations, data management, administration, quality, software project management etc … So I guess your definition is a bit narrow minded.

Actually I never said building software was high tech, nor did I sid that geeks were ruling the whole business or saving the world. I just said : internet culture originally is geek culture.

There are still some people making fortunes building code. But you are right, the key now is to develop solutions – which is basically what I said in the Geek/Apple/iPad post.

But with web development, PC development, and boat development came standardization. Tools and knowledge are shared freely and while I do still consider code geeky, today's code is not nearly as geeky as binary code or let's say Pearl or C (I really don't know these languages, so correct me if I'm wrong). My point is that there are frameworks like Django, there are really simple abstracted quasi-languages like Ruby or even HTML, all of which is becoming less and less high tech. From a business standpoint, that means that the barriers to entry are virtually non-existent, which is why there are so many, too many apps on the iTunes app-store, only 2 years after its release, and why the same problem will occur on the iPad.

Culturally this means that everyone, geek or non-geek, can develop software today. And if you don't want to, you can hire developers to execute your vision via sites like eLance. The idea of geekdom, as far as it relates to software development is disappearing, it is being outsourced to code-monkeys working on modules of codes somewhere in China or India.

And that is why I think developing code ONLY is a losing battle. Everyday an iPhone or iPad is released we get a step closer to the underlying code becoming less and less important, to the whole PC industry, building harddrives, motherboards, and ram into computers, becomes a non-issue. High-tech is no longer software or Dell boxes. It is stuff like curing cancer, like developing micro-robots to clean oil from our oceans, it is complex algorythms that manage to both suggest the right book to you as well as plunge the world into a "mis-calculated" banking crisis. ICT, now more than ever, has just become a small screw in a much more complex tapestry.

Went on a little rant there, hope not too much.

However, the internet culture is theirs. Geeks invented, developed and implemented Wikis, Blogs, Forums on the internet back in the Web 1.0 times. It's not someone coming out of business school or with a real product/service/solution agenda and line of products that did so.

Geeks invented these solutions because they needed them badly to communicate and collaborate on open source solutions. In other word, the internet culture is originally a geek culture.Cluetrain Manifesto is a good read to put this into perspective.

Agile methodology is just about the same. So in that very case, OSS/Agile methodology cultures and technology completely goes hand in hand.

You could argue that it's easy for them to import this culture behind the firewall, since it's theirs, and you would be right. But that's another story I suppose.

McAfee would tel you that email is a channel (i.e 1 to 1, not searchable etc ..) while E20 is based on platforms (many people accessing, searchable as data is persisted and indexed with tags etc …)/

Funnily enough, I'm not sure that CEO are the most relunctant in adoption 2.0 approaches. From many of the studies on the topic, we found out that Managers were. Bringing E20 bring transparency, fluidity, disintermediation, all this elements that make middle managers pretty uncomfortable with the whole thing.

The advanatge in deploying on small scale s that you can reach small milestones and foster small vitories. This helps in giving momentum to the project.

Agree with you : observability is key. But compatibility and complexity also are.

My stance is always Observability is key. I think that the internet has made a lot of headway in the domain of analytics and copywriting for effect. We are in a new age of writers, where people are constantly exchanging thoughts on how to better present information so that readers can use it. Some of those lessons should be applicable on a private networking environment. Observability is also key when dealing with the most conservative people in an organisation, usually the ones paying the bills.

Generally, I like the idea of deploying e2.0 systems on a small scale to see how effective such a system really is. I have my doubts. Just like Google Buzz isn't really an innovation over Gmail, because email is already a social network, I think there are plenty of social networks in place in organizations, they are just not labeled as such.

As for the rest, I don't think culture and technology necessarily go hand in hand. Plenty of programmers that are completely stuck in code and never look out the window to smell the fresh air… and vice versa. I think technologists should get out more, it would make them better programmers, but somehow I think that always works out.

Thanks for your comment. I'm not saying that IT people are experts in Social Networks. I'm saying that they have experience in importing internet culture into the organization because they already did so with OSS first and then Agile Methodology.

Everybody agrees that the main obstacle to Enterprise 2.0 adoption is not a technical one. It's a cultural one.
Enterprise 2.0 (i.e Social Networks within the Enterprise) IS importing internet culture into the enterprise. SO if you're lloking for people within your company with Enterprise 2.0 experience, you may try your luck asking IT people.

Hey I love this idea of being called a Dinosaur. First because I used to work on Mainframe and that's what I was called back then. Second because Dinosaur Jr is one of my favorite bands ever.

There are plenty of IT people that I know that have real difficulty grasping social networks and why they work. That doesn’t make them experts in my book. It’s kind of like saying that dinosaurs are experts on planet earth, just because they were there first.

I don’t include you in that book, so I hope you’re not offended.

The nice analysis was only possible, because of extensive playing of games other than FarmVille. =)

I also don't 100% agree with that people don't improve by playing Farmville, after all you wrote up a nice analysis of it, only possible after some extensive playing.

Finally, hell yes, free games are really a bad idea for users. I kind of respect the ad-supported model and don't think that interferes with playability too much, but creating inequality through money really is a gameplay-killer. I guess adverts don't pay that much any more and there clearly continues to be a market for offering stuff for free (duh), but this kind of business model borders on the criminal and is only unchallenged because we're talking about small amounts of money. But I'm sure there are very juicy stories concerning World of Warcraft, apart from the people dying from playing too long and the Chinese gold farmers of course.

Anyway, once again, great post!

This post was mentioned on Twitter by vincentvw: How Mergers and Acquisitions May Actually Narrows the Scope of Innovation http://ff.im/-el2j5...

I just wanted to say that I've been pitching this nonstop to my parents, including having them play around with the iPod Touch and see how they navigate. Even they get it! So I'm pretty confident that it will be ok. In any case, I'll buy one and test it out again and then we'll see.

Multi tasking is bad for energy consumption.

iPad will be the device to bring back the world Slow into electronic culture. Kathy Sierra talked about Lust when mentionning the iPad. Lust is not hectic and fast and multitasking. It's slow and relaxing.

So that it si comfortable to read books. And then to buy books.

I even suspect Steve Jobs to prepare something with major newspaper (NY Times etc ..) to offer some news services direct to the iPad.

But for users like my parents, a single focus clearly is a SIMPLE focus, which is a feature, not a bug.

Thanks Lou! I've actually been user testing my parents a bit, by letting them play around with my iPod Touch. The thing about it, compared to Windows or Macs, is that the goal is immediately apparent. My parents are interested in Mail and Browsing mainly, and my mother in pictures. Those icons are immediately "in your face" when turning on the device. A second advantage is actually the touchscreen. Instead of having to teach them how to use a mouse and right-/left-clicking (a big nightmare), it's just a matter of pointing your finger and clicking.

Other than that, there are no crashes, the wireless internet just works, and it (the Touch) really is an idiot-proof device, which is also why I personally love it.

IPad looks awesome, when you consider the price in combination with what it offers in terms of simplicity and function, makes it an even better deal. The only thing I wouldn’t hold my breath about is the part about “less headaches from our parents” that is inevitable.. but in regards to the IPad.. many users from our parents’ generation don’t really do well with touch screen.

The iPhone OS's lack of background app support also creates some problems, like using software like Pastebot in other apps. Instead users have to adopt pretty convoluted workflows just to work with these two apps, that work just fine on the Mac.

In the end, I think multitasking is a challenge, both from a UX-design standpoint and for users own workflows. I see "singletasking" as a choice, not something to be forced upon users.

Thanks for your comment. Glad to see you share my view point on the target market.

I still believe that the single task thing can be seen a feature which makes iPad a complete different animal than a laptop, with different usability and rhythm.

I am reading Enterprise 2.0 book from Andrew McAfee and I now have a better understanding of your point about complexity science.

I believe that what you mean is that complexity science helps in understanding how structure emerge from pattern of usage from multiple users.

And I understand that my understanding of emergence is a bit shallow compared to the actual meaning that Andrew of yourself can put behind Emergence, again, based on complexity science.

However I stick to my take against complexity in a organisational environment : as Scott Berkun puts it nicely, there are 2 types of people : complexifiers and simplifiers.

And I have noticed that we just achieve far more with the second category of people.

About the lack of multi-tasking: it makes zero sense not to have it on this device, which is why I'm sure it will be there soon. But… I think Apple is keeping it simple for developers. First scale their app to a larger screen, which is not as easy as inflating pixels, then think about background tasks. I kind of think that's also the reason why the front-facing camera was omitted, to not make it too alien to the iPhone OS, but that is unfortunately not a software tweak and a real minus for this device.