Nytt år! Är ni i behov av en extra resurs i ett projekt för
projektledning, koordinering eller dokumentering? Behöver ni stöd i en
försäljning- eller upphandlingsprocess? Eller ett föredrag om IT-moln på ett
lunchseminarium? Kontakta gärna mig. Jag har gedigen erfarenhet
inom IT Outsourcing, IT som tjänst och moln av såväl tjänsteutveckling, storytelling,
projektledning och avtalsarbeten. Kort startsträcka från en driven,
kvalitetsmedveten, målinriktad uppskattad person som vet att värdet för
konsumenten är nyckeln till lyckade IT-affärer.
Showing posts with label Marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marketing. Show all posts
Friday, 4 January 2013
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
A collection of comments
This is a collection of the comments I've posted today on a couple of sites. Most important one is No. 3. It's time we put pressure and demand true professionalism. New business opportunity in No. 2 - go ahead, time for action.
Comment 1: Commented: Employees Engage in Rogue Cloud Use Regardless of Security Policies
Comment 1: Commented: Employees Engage in Rogue Cloud Use Regardless of Security Policies
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
Well, do you understand Cloud?!
Commented the post Does the US understand cloud computing? on ZDNet by Charlie Osborne (@ZDNetCharlie).
Short break out:
Short break out:
When asked what "the cloud" was, 29 percent said "a fluffy white thing", whereas only 16 percent connected the phrase with a network used to store, access and share data across Internet-connected devices.
Cloud computing was found to be widely misunderstood. The survey found that:
- 51 percent of respondents, including a majority of Millennials, believe stormy weather
Saturday, 21 April 2012
Cloud Washing…does it REALLY matter
Look at it from another perspective… The customers’ perspective. Does cloud washing really matter then?
I’m working at a Nordic IT outsourcing provider and have together with them delivered IT as a Service since 1997 (I'm now more on my own: MMind.se). I’m personally very into cloud services and how and why companies should adopt it. I’m also very into how IT service providers (cloud or “classics”) should think to give customers value and increase efficiency to become more productive. Therefor I’m not only talking cloud.
When I, with the option of three different subjects, asked what readers wanted to read as my next post they all (3…hm…well) pointed at Cloud Washing with the comment that it is important that people become aware of washed cloud services. The post was published in the beginning of this week on Know Your Cloud as Cloud Washing – Don’t End Up Washing Your IT with False Clouds. Though; from the beginning my intention was to talk about whether the washing of a service to a “cloud service” really matters as long as it kills customer pains.
Saturday, 14 January 2012
2.0's
Have you noticed the 2.0’s? The 2.0’s equal to ‘now we’ve really been thinking about the semi good basic thing called nothing special because it really wasn’t possible to “versionize”.’ The 2.0’s equal to ‘well let’s shape up the thing to expected and supposed level and call it 2.0, everyone will love this.’
Well, the first times it popped up it felt fresh, maybe even a little bit cool. But start to think about it, taste it. Does it really work in the long term? I think it’s too obvious the 2.0 "baptizers" (market department?) didn’t think well enough.
Isn’t this just - evolution?
My point is; there are some basic types of things and activities which aren’t possible to put in to versions. Some examples: car, job, person, name etc. 2.0’s without a real or a planned successor stops at 2.0 and it only shows we had to call it 2.0 to be able to express ‘we’re better now, trust us. Now; what could possibly go wrong?!’. Will you be more successful if you call it 2.0 instead of just shaping up the function, activity or thing which are not working well enough or more possibly how it was supposed to work from the beginning? What’s the next step? 3.0? ‘Now we are really good.’ Eh… It’s a dead end. Things can evolve without putting them in to versions.
Use 2.0 when you have an unnamed version or a 1.x and the 2.0 is the successor and when you have a plan for a 2.x and 3.x in the future. Also when you can point at a specific procedure or standard. Don’t use 2.0 when you just want to tell ‘now we do it a little bit better’. It’s just so transparent.
Think before you start numbering!
By the way; I’m waiting for earth 2.0…
/Max (1.0)
Well, the first times it popped up it felt fresh, maybe even a little bit cool. But start to think about it, taste it. Does it really work in the long term? I think it’s too obvious the 2.0 "baptizers" (market department?) didn’t think well enough.
Isn’t this just - evolution?
My point is; there are some basic types of things and activities which aren’t possible to put in to versions. Some examples: car, job, person, name etc. 2.0’s without a real or a planned successor stops at 2.0 and it only shows we had to call it 2.0 to be able to express ‘we’re better now, trust us. Now; what could possibly go wrong?!’. Will you be more successful if you call it 2.0 instead of just shaping up the function, activity or thing which are not working well enough or more possibly how it was supposed to work from the beginning? What’s the next step? 3.0? ‘Now we are really good.’ Eh… It’s a dead end. Things can evolve without putting them in to versions.
Use 2.0 when you have an unnamed version or a 1.x and the 2.0 is the successor and when you have a plan for a 2.x and 3.x in the future. Also when you can point at a specific procedure or standard. Don’t use 2.0 when you just want to tell ‘now we do it a little bit better’. It’s just so transparent.
Think before you start numbering!
By the way; I’m waiting for earth 2.0…
/Max (1.0)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)