On POST – in theory it should be modular, and approachable from any angle, but the danger of going for the pronounceable acronym is that, inadvertently or not, technology falls at the end of the process, as laid out in that fashion.

I agree that putting technology first, particularly choosing a solution AND THEN finding a real business problem it solves (cough, typical SharePoint deployments, and Notes before that, and not nearly the entire list of suspects), is a major WORST practice. (If only BEST practices multiplied as quickly as WORST.)

What I’m aiming to get across is that many vendors, integrators and consultants seem to assume that previous solutions will be ripped and replaced, or chucked into yet another silo. This is a root cause of the huge amount of wasted spend in B2B technology, IMHO.

When I suggest to buyers, whether in a business or IT role, that perhaps they don’t need to spend a single dime more on technology, given their business needs, well, that’s typically about the strangest thing they’ve ever heard, as most in this industry are there to sell them something, while I’m trying to help them solve their business problems with the most appropriate, targeted, cost-effective options.

All told, it looks as though you and I are on the same page, on multiple fronts.

We seem to be both reading into this that MSFT is signaling some activity (how soon? they typical telegraph about 3 years out, in the past) – which is definitely an interesting tidbit to watch.

The way in which methodologies are worded do, however, concern me, as it is all too easy to see how POST, for example, could lead people to ignore a good part of the problem until the end of the process. In an industry (to Yuri Alkin’s leading point) overrun with invented terminology, and particularly acronyms that are annoying to misleading, we need to keep an eye out to make sure we haven’t baffled people with our own cleverness.

Very interested in alternative takes – great discussion though, look forward to circling back with you.

Best,
Dan

Re “T”echnology being last… I don’t think the POST method says you must ignore technology until the end of the process. I think the purpose of this order is to set out priorities for an idealized strategy. It will be a rare case for any existing enterprise to define all of the “POS” before any “T” constraints are considered. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if most e2.0 initiatives start with the IT department in the drivers seat, already seeing everything through the filter of their existing technology/expertise investments. But even in that case it is still smart for them to try to be nimble – to look at the POS first to determine if their existing T is suitable, if they need to introduce new T, etc.

Isn’t this consistent with what you say in your fine presentation that you linked to on SlideShare? I quote slide #10…

…”Technology is only ONE part of what makes Enterprise 2.0 useful and relevant… (Secret Hint) Its not the most important part”

You nail the people factor in slide #33, then pound on culture and strategy. Nothing in this excellent deck starting spinning my techie propeller cap. This deck screams POS factors first. That is where you should start any E2.0 initiative, right?

Same model, and not much improved through the magic of Gartner marketing spin.

Regardless of who we bow to in using the model though, it does actually bear out in the “real world” – the simple fact is that no “innovation” (or idea, concept, theory, etc.) instantly catalyzes the world. E2.0 has a technology component, to be sure, and it would be silly to ignore the technological impact.

Which is why I disagree with the POST model. Putting technology LAST in the methodology is ignoring the fact that technology ALREADY EXISTS in any business older than a day.

Quite often, I recommend to my clients that they DON’T BUY ANY MORE TECHNOLOGY for the business need they’ve brought me in to assist with. More than likely, they should throw some things out, or at the least, do integration (light-weight or heavy) to make what they’ve already bought/paid for USEFUL.

That doesn’t always make the software companies I’m advising all that happy, but in the end, if the buyer/user is not happy, that is only going to come back and bite you – and these days, an unhappy, vocal customer is DEATH to a business given the magnification of social networks and social media.

Yuri’s quote “Real gold is not in the technologies of today. It’s not even in applying the best of breed E2.0 tools correctly. It’s in solutions of tomorrow, designed to solve hard business problems through people-connecting technologies.” – wow, that is troubling.

So we should just wait until tomorrow, when the appropriate solutions finally arrive because of course none of the solutions today are suitable…

The solutions of tomorrow will be replaced by the solutions of the day after that. Why don’t we try addressing the problems of today NOW, by honestly assessing the business and technology aspects that are already in house NOW? Waiting until tomorrow sounds like the type of thinking that has destroyed the automotive industry, the steel industry, and many others. Very dangerous thinking.

I gave a presentation this week at the Front End of Innovation conference in Boston, specifically on Enterprise 2.0 and Innovation. Interesting questions, and people are both confused and intrigued in this topic.

There is a video clip (6 minutes of the 20 minute presentation) on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUmogO7FomM

And full slides from the presentation at:
http://www.slideshare.net/dan.keldsen/do-you-have-the-strength-to-embrace-innovation-in-a-20-world

People, Culture, Technology – driven by business-need = the way to go.

I’m guessing, but I think the way it should work in the US is that each 110V bus will carry the current due to its own 110V outlet load (obviously), and the current due to the 220V outlet load will appear in-phase and added to each of the 110V bus lines equally. Power factor and switch-mode wobbly waveform loads will have an effect, of course, but that’s another story.

Say we have a 110V 10-amp toaster on bus 1 and 110V 3-amp kitchen spotlight bar on bus 2. If we now turn on a 4-amp 220V cooker burner, Bus 1 will read 10 + 4 = 14A and Bus 2 will read 3 + 4 = 7A.

The Current Cost sensor can accept optional 2nd and 3rd CTs (Current Transformers) and it simply adds up the energy from each. So it should pick up correctly if you acquire an extra CT and plug it in, one on each 110V bus.

However, the European version of the sensor software uses a volts value of 240V in calculating Wattage, so in the 2 x 110V bus scenario it will send roughly double the value of the actual Watts to be displayed and output in the XML.

Does that all sound plausible?

Cheers, Chris

~Mike