blogs.conchango.com

I'm obviously well behind in the race to be the first trendspotter for 2008, but since it's still January I reckon it's still early enough to look at the year ahead and aggregate what the experts say is likely to be big for multi-channel business innovators as we move seriously into the digital age.

I'm going to keep it simple because explanations could run into pages, so here's a few bullets on what I think is worth keeping an eye on for the future

1. Local and Hyperlocal social networks - My Street type thing – neighbourhoods, apartments, clubs, companies etc
2. Private social networks - More privacy in social networks
3. Opensource social networking - OpenSocial, OpenID, OpenAds, FOAF (Friend of a Friend networks)
4. SocialSoftware - White label social networking applications like KickApps
5. More Virtual reality - Second Life, There.com, Kaneva, Gaia, Habbo Hotel etc
6. DRM free music download from major players - This is pretty much done now
7. Internet TV and Video - IPTV, Video streaming & Online Cinema
8. Make it yourself media – Pictures, blogs, music, video
9. eReaders and eBooks - Kindle, Sony Reader
10. Videoblogging

1. Mobile expansion – Yes, it's stating the obvious!
2. Open source platforms and applications - Google Android
3. WiMax, Wifi services inflight (broadband inflight, on trains etc)
4. Mcdonalds recent provision of free wireless could start a high street trend. Once mobile internet becomes fast and free, the mobile as a browsing and commerce medium is seriously going to kick off and Touch Screen phones will become ubiquitous
5. Continued uptake of smart phones particularly in offices
6. Mobile Marketing
7. Mobile Payments - This gap is itching to be filled with a secure cost-effective payments provider. This is happening already with companies like LUUP and mCommerce will become a more serious prospect. Other more direct options like Obopay are also becoming available.
8. (Live) videocasting from mobiles to the web
9. Mobile social networking - Mobiluck, Migg33, Meetmoi, Loopt, SoonR, Aki-Aki are already some examples, with the standard twitter, tumblr, facebook status updaters already tapping into mobile mania
10. Mobile Spam - Surprised it hasn't happened yet! Major security implications.

1. Leveraging social networking for business return - Oldish news, but it's going to more than just about Facebook this year
2. Group buying - Crowdstorm, Yub.com
3. Social Shopping - Kaboodle, Wists, ThisNext
4. Network Analysis for marketing and customer relationship management - See my post on Natural Networks
5. Increasing digital/internet marketing - Rapidly growing Internet advertising market is expected to rake in US$27.5 billion in 2008, according to eMarketer.
6. Revenue sharing advertising models
7. Virtual payments - Paypal Secure Card, Google Checkout
8. Branded prepaid payment cards - Payoneer
9. Revenue based social networking - Dada, MeYouWorld etc. .. yes we're talking the dreaded pyramid schemes for the web

1. Outsourcing maturity
2. Business innovation will become more based on creativity and design - Design Thinking
3. Disruptive Innovation from other industries as new competition - unexpected entrants like the iPhone and Google adsense
4. "Peer-to-peer lending" - Facilitation of loans between complete strangers
5. Buyer niches – Gender, age, Generations 'Y' and ‘Z’
6. "Premiumisation" – Particularly air travel premium and business classes
7. "See hear buy" – eg. Music on websites, Books on kindle, Midomi (sound recognition search engine)
8. Social lending & Microfinance
9. Social Entrepreneurship & CSR

That should give you plenty to think about. Enjoy!

A recent question around the area of personalisation and customisation as part of the web offering of mature retail brands got me thinking about this post, because it's an issue I've seen with a number of organisations.

The first problem lies with semantics - i.e. the definition of personalisation vs customisation with respect to the use and design of websites. I see one as automatic audience targeting and the other as the ability for the customer to manipulate the website to fit their needs... the former as personalisation and the latter as customisation.

As a business your first priority is to define your understanding of what each one means so that all parties are working from the same standpoint.

In terms of personalisation as per the above definition then, I reckon this is the future of customer focused business intelligence. It is about understanding the customer, either as part of a larger group or as an individual and then presenting them with their own unique customer experience. User Experience experts can help with audience segmentation analysis, identifying key audience groups and defining an experience that best fits/targets them. Similar to personas, but a bit more generic and more automated; with some business logic that leverages the user's profile data and preference information along with their browsing habits to present them with the scenario that fits them. From a technology and business intelligence perspective you could implement real time tracking and analysis of user behaviour, underpinning the automated tailoring of content presented as the user progresses through their experience. Sort of an extension of what I was talking about in an earlier post on the targeted channel experience.

In terms of customisation, from an online retailing perspective, I don't really see the benefits against cost of development. You could provide a 'Windows Live' type page where users can customise what they see and how they see it, but frankly with mature retailers I don't see who would really use it. Shared personal profiles that users can customise similarly don't really make sense for this type of business, or at least not until social networking in the mature brand shopping context becomes significantly more embedded, if it ever does.

However, simpler customisation linked to personalisation, could be very useful; for e.g. possibly like a variation on the Amazon recommendations model, where the user could be presented with an option alongside product displays allowing them to select items into a 'not interested' and 'I like' category that can then not only automatically build them their own page they can refer to and edit later, but also feeds into the intelligent browsing stuff I was talking about in the previous paragraph - i.e. this information is used to understand what the user is looking for and preferentially feed them those products as they browse or search, thus enhancing the targeted browsing experience.

This could help retailers improve their offering to customers online, increasing not just browse to sale conversions, but also brand loyalty because the customer feels understood.

Interesting snippet from Forrester European research in 2006 suggests that of the people who aren't actually shopping online, the majority avoid ecommerce for two major reasons: They want to be able to see what they're buying and they're worried about financial security.

For retailers and ecommerce site designers I'd suggest this means two things

1. Focus on better product display: Thumbnails leading to high quality pictures. Clear descriptions and specifications. Zoom functions. Rotatable 3D views. Size and specification comparisons. What about even video with people displaying and discussing the product particularly for higher end items? Finally why not provide free try and return on products the user is not happy with - similar to catalogue selling. Basically make it easier for people to take the risk of buying a product they haven't physically held.
2. Improve the security messages on your websites: Have clear, prominent and easy to understand safeguards to build user confidence. This is not about a simple FAQ page, but an active marketing campaign on the home-page that draws visitors into knowing more about your commitment to their privacy and financial safety. Invest in fraud detection and management software and develop dedicated customer service functions that not only deal with security issues but also field calls and build dialogue with nervous customers.

If you’ve heard of the different types of Agile team, you may also have read about how they are supposed to be led and managed, but if you're anything like me when I first implemented Agile it is quite probable that you haven't. Agile team classification is basically contrived to fit what is known as Situational Leadership theory as developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard (see Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H, Leadership and the One Minute Manager, William Morrow, 1999). This approach is in use because running Agile teams is arguably more about providing leadership than management.

The basic premise of the theory is that Leaders should adapt their style to team maturity based on how ready and willing they are to perform required tasks in terms of both their competence and motivation. The classification uses a four quadrant grid matrix outlining four recognised types of team, classified by their Readiness Level (R) based on their overall degree of ability and willingness. For more detail on these levels see my post Recognising different types of Agile team (R1, R2, R3 or R4).

Leadership in an Agile team comes from three sources in order of impact as follows:

1. The Team Leader (aka Scrum Master)
2. The Responsible Owner for the Project (aka Product Owner)
3. The Team Members themselves

The situational leadership approach under discussion applies primarily to the Scrum Master’s interaction with the team. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the classical theory so I've adapted it to make it more practical as follows:

--------------------------------------------------- 

R1 Teams – Little or no ability or familiarity, and Unwilling or insecure about Agile

Required Leadership style = Telling / Leading by example

The Scrum Master in a team like this is likely to be most successful in an authoritative role, leading by example, making decisions for the team, educating, explaining, giving feedback and demonstrating clarity in terms of both process management and task delegation. The corollary here is that the Scrum Master must already be very familiar if not expert with Agile as a process, and needs to have overcome their own issues with the methodology. Any uncertainty around the process or its merits from a leader in an R1 team rapidly cascades and balloons through the team, resulting in increased resistance to delivery and the resultant efficiency and effectiveness losses.

If the Scrum Master is also an Agile novice it is imperative that they remain positive about Agile, locate a source of expertise to deliver the structure needed, and at all costs avoid falling back on traditional ways of working to get through difficult periods. R1 teams are on a steep learning curve but are sceptical at the same time and so will challenge the process and their roles relative to each other. They also typically have very different understandings of what Agile is all about. The Scrum Master must embed the working philosophy, minimise scope for unnecessary argument around how things need to be done, and needs to take a firm stance on dispute resolution.

The major leadership focus here should be positivity, team building, education and process enforcement.

Some tips for managing novice Agile teams

• Take the team on an Agile ‘Team-working & Estimation/Planning’ course (ideally not Scrum-Master focused); once at the start and then once again after a few sprints to ensure that all members are working from the same baseline understanding of the process and their responsibilities.
• Make sure that continuous integration and nightly builds are in place to help with regular and positive end-user feedback.
• Engage the services of complete neutrals for running retrospectives.
• Be careful not to underestimate the amount of time spent managing team interaction, and at all costs avoid taking on any critical delivery role within the team as you will find yourself under significant pressure and most probably end up doing both roles poorly.
• Finally focus on the short term and small wins to boost confidence, and ensure that the team gets recognition for their achievements, both from the Product Owner and from the business.

---------------------------------------------------  

R2 Teams – Little or limited ability, but with Willingness to try and apply Agile

Required Leadership style = Guidance / Coaching

Arguably the key difference between and R2 and R1 team is that members in an R2 team are not sceptical either about the process or working together. This removes some of the need for focusing on trust or team-building and selling benefits of the process. There is more scope to let the team engage in discussion about how they prefer to work, but still a high requirement for the Scrum Master to lead by example with clarity on process and task management. The main challenge is to prevent any loss of confidence, and as such the same elements of the telling style apply. Education is paramount and planning is vital to prevent excessive overtime. Retrospectives can be more open and tend to be more effective because there already are the necessary levels of trust.

The above can be elaborated further, but at this point I’m going to be contentious. I’d argue that except right at the beginning of a project there is no such thing as a true R2 team and as such is not an area worth elaborating too much on. Willing or not, people are inherently resistance to change that forces them out of their comfort zones, and in pressure situations will revert to tried and tested ways of coping in such situations – and in some ways rightly so. Even if you introduced Agile to a close team that has worked well together over a significant period of time, the removal of roles and hierarchies, and the dependencies on cross-functionality will change team dynamics and disrupt trust and confidence.

In essence then, unless you’re working with a team that already is familiar and comfortable with Agile, you can safely assume that you will be working with an R1 team, and apply a leadership/management style that focuses primarily on telling and leading by example, but with a focus on coaching and selling benefits.

Combined R1 & 2 Leadership Style = Telling / Leading by Example / Decision-making / Educating

---------------------------------------------------  

R3 Teams – Good ability and familiarity, but Unwilling or resistant to Agile

Required Leadership style = Supporting

R3 teams however are clearly distinguishable and must be considered separately. This type of team already knows what the Agile process is all about. They are able to go through the motions, manage the artefacts and know how to survive within an Agile environment. They do not need much educating or coaching with regards to the process and their responsibilities. However they are unwilling most likely because their previous experiences have not necessarily been successful and/or successes were achieved at a high team or individual price. This type of team reacts badly to being told what do because it is already capable of self-organising if it wants to. And ‘wants to’ is the key. The Scrum Master here needs to focus on moving the team towards wanting to work this way by being support and participative; and by showing commitment to the team and allowing it to use Agile to its advantage. There must be more room for discussion around process and group consensus on ways of working. There is still need to be positive about the merits of following Agile working practices and enough expertise to provide clarity when needed.

But most importantly it is the Scrum Master’s role as a remover of obstacles that comes into play. Success horizons are longer because the team can see future issues better than R1 or R2 teams and the Scrum Master must start planning further into the future to deal with dependencies and ensure that necessary conversations are able to be held at the appropriate times. They must make the bigger picture clear to the team and keep members involved with management of deliverables. The Scrum Master also needs to ensure that they are clearly perceived as an integral part of the Agile unit through demonstrating strong commitment and support to all members, as well as confidently backing team decisions to the Product Owner or business.

---------------------------------------------------  

R4 Teams – High level of ability and experience, with Willingness and confidence in Agile

Required Leadership style = Delegating

R4 teams work well and confidently both with each other and with the process. They require little or no process or task guidance and exhibit mature working behaviours. The Scrum Master is there to help but not to make delivery decisions, which should be delegated to the team itself to keep them motivated and engaged. This is in other words a ‘high-performing’ team, and thus will most likely be self-motivated and driven by the satisfaction of taking on and overcoming technical and time challenges. The Scrum Master can help keep the team engaged by focusing on removing obstacles, and ensuring that there is a constant throughput of work with the Business capable of feeding back at the pace of delivery.

An R4 team is fully capable of self-organising and managing itself, and let’s face it, is therefore an extremely rare occurrence! Frankly it really shouldn’t need a full time Scrum Master, and typically in organisations where these exist, a Scrum Master would probably be involved with a number of Agile teams rather than just the one.  

Post Summary: Part 3 of the High Street 2.0 discussion, outlining ideas that retailers could consider if they want to create the next generation high street shopping experience where their consumers can enjoy the benefits of online shopping instore, and which will allow them to compete against online bargains and specialist pure-plays.

In my previous post (The High Street 2.0 - Part 2), I raised the point that online and offline channels have complementary but currently exclusive benefits. On the internet, consumers can access related products, accessories, comparative price options, product information, communities, social interaction, reviews, simplified purchase, and delivery, while also being able to feedback to others about the experience. Consumers are therefore becoming used to a richer, faster, and more socially interactive shopping experience. What they cannot do is try out products for fit, look, feel, appropriateness and ease of use before buying, or even benefit from the immediacy of collecting the item at time of purchase, which are the core benefits of buying in-store.

In-store benefits unfortunately cannot practically be transferred to the online environment, or at least not until virtual reality goes a whole lot further than secondlife.com! However, there is no reason why online benefits cannot be brought in-store. And that in a nutshell, is what I'm talking about in terms of a vision of the High Street 2.0. To stay competitive against online competition i.e. the pure plays, retailers must start developing a new generation of information and experience rich high street stores.

Like Web 2.0 web-sites, the next generation high street store must demonstrate a better appreciation of the target consumer as a person rather than a product buyer. In other words it must make the shopping experience person-centric by providing space, comfort, information, social engagement, easy points to call for help, and valid reasons to come in and enjoy the in-store experience for browsers; whilst providing efficient entry and exit routes for shoppers who know what they want. Retailers must conversely also appreciate the elements of the shopping experience that make store customers uncomfortable and look for avenues to cut them out, for e.g. not enough browsing space, product overcrowding, help not unavailable at the right time and place, and lengthy purchase queues.

So what could the High Street 2.0 physically look like? Well, one route might be where large stores evolve into experience-focused social spaces with products as a backdrop, while small stores leverage user computing and web technology to shift towards becoming product information hubs where consumers use touch screens to choose what they want to see, try and buy.

Anyway, regardless of the avenue of evolution, the following are some high level ideas that retailers could start exploring in the battle for effective channel-independent competitive advantage.

Shop design and layout

• Support the social experience. Create shops as places to relax and engage while browsing. Widen out browsing space by reducing products on display but allowing consumers to view more items via screens and have these brought to them on request.
• How about providing comfy sofa seats for customers to relax with built-in pull out touch screens to browse product listings, or read reviews, or order and pay for items etc. in shop? Or free lavatory facilities with interactive product information to capture interest?
• Why not provide changing room tickets so customers don't have to stand around with their items at busy times?
• Provide non-product specific reasons for consumers to enter and walk around. Collaborate with social networking enablers like coffee shops or bars, and design the space around this, rather than shoe-horning a coffee point into some corner of a shop as we see with Costa.
• For multi-brand retailers, mix brands together by product category rather than cordon off areas by brand as is the current norm.
• Place directly related product families together e.g. A Canon camera plus it's case, plus leads, lenses, memory card and batteries displayed as a group next to each other, or via a touch screen or at least a printed card next to each major product item displaying accessories available in-store and where to find them.

Self service information points / screens / kiosks

• Provide customisation capability – select size, colour etc, with order and payment capability for immediate collection or delivery, or even simply to find which store has the required version and the option to place it on hold
• Provide review capability – for consumers to browse store and product ratings and reviews
• Provide browsing capability for customers to interactively scan through products available, related to an interactive map to find the item in-store
• Allow customers to use these screens to select and request items to try, with in-store sales assistants tasked to put the selection together at changing rooms or tryout points
• Allow customers to create visualisations of outfits, with workflow that suggests others options, and then be able to select to get the whole ensemble provided by a sales assistant for them to try on directly at the changing rooms
• If really brave and/or price competitive, be open and allow direct in-store price comparison against competitors. Frankly this could even be a business idea in itself to set up stop off points on the high street where shoppers can pop in and run quick price comparisons or read product reviews of things they're about to buy in a nearby shop. Maybe this could be combined with a bar or sandwich space, with this service as a free value-add and supported with revenue through the advertising opportunities it would create.

Simpler purchasing options

• Provide self checkout terminals
• Allow customers to create ‘one-click' style accounts in-store using self-type pin or password verification – synchronise these with online services and vice-versa, i.e. recognise one-click accounts created online.
• Incentivise buyers to go online and register one-click accounts and credit cards like Amazon. Provide offers or free credit that are only validated once this is complete, but which are redeemable across any channel
• Use these accounts to create and maintain purchase histories that can be accessed in-store and leveraged to create value for the consumer.

Relevance

• Ensure one consistent view of each registered customer with seamless multi-channel integration across both billing account and product history
• Use buyer history to recommend other items worth looking at, or suggest items other people bought – maybe even provide as a printout when handing over purchased items?
• Recommend complementary products when making a sale – again this could automatically be printed out on item scan and handed to the buyer
• As above, suggest related accessories for product being purchased. Complementary and accessory products could alternatively be highlighted at point of display through item grouping, touch screens, flip-cards etc.

Value-adds

• Allow online vouchers to be used in-store and vice-versa. Avoid promotions that result in one channel cannibalising sales from another i.e. single channel discounts
• Ensure that online and offline prices are consistent for the same type of purchase, for e.g. if ordering for home delivery in store, the consumer should be able to pay online prices on assumption that the item will be delivered from a warehouse somewhere with cheaper overheads allocated to it.
• Allow customers to specify delivery while paying for items in-store
• Provide try and return policies with free return postage or easy access PUDOs (pick up and drop off points)

Leverage the web and email

• Capture email address at point of purchase and use it to auto create user accounts on the store website. Email log-in details straight to the user, along with purchase, receipt and product guarantee details. Auto link product details in the email to review capability.
• Design the website to support the in-store experience, rather to compete as a separate and unique online entity
• Collaborate/tie-up with online social networking sites and bring elements of these in-store – e.g. say Zara advertising on My Space online, while creating a range of My Space branded clothing for sale in-store
• Create and develop free but branded popular culture spaces to embed brand and create new target audiences – e.g. Gap creating a free and open clothing review and discussion site that is only minimally branded to Gap but effectively creates a new audience.

To summarise then, I see the High Street 2.0 comprising information and experience rich stores, where consumers can enjoy the benefits of both web and in-store shopping; developed by retailers with a single channel-unified approach to pricing, marketing and consumer relationship management, and supported by seamlessly integrated information about target audiences across both online and offline channels.

Post Summary: Part 1 of a discussion around the next generation "High Street 2.0" concept, and the drivers that are likely to lead us there.

In my last post on The Virtual High Street, I mentioned that depending on what I'm shopping for, like many users I sometimes identify the product offline and then look for a bargain online, but as that wouldn't be limited to high street retailers I felt it was better explored in another post. Anyway to take that topic further, I'm going to look a little closer at the reasons that drive customers to browse offline without buying, only to then buy online (usually somewhere else) instead of in-store.

This is hugely relevant to retailers whose primary revenue channels are their real world high street shops, not just because of the impact on conversion rates, but because the trend implies that their offline customer experience needs to be improved to provide customers with in-store access to the benefits of buying online.

I am in other words leading up to a discussion around cross-channel symbiosis, and the evolution of high street stores from one-dimensional product pushers into broader experience focused outlets, in the way that static dial-up generation websites are now evolving along the rich experience web 2.0 route. Some are doing this already, but more from the web-space into the offline world, like Etsy, who've just opened a real world store in Brooklyn; or ZoZa who tried a physical store for customers to try before buying online only (and failed); or former cosmetics pure play Bluemercury.com who've now set up physical outlets for customers who want to sample before buying. Who knows, maybe we're seeing the start of the next generation high street – or as Julian recently joked – the High Street 2.0?

But back to the point of this post… key reasons why consumers browse offline but then buy online instead of closing the sale in-store

1. Bargains / cheaper prices (through general search and via shopping bots)
   If you just want one to consider one primary driver for this trend, then I'd suggest this is the one. Consumers want to know not just that they're getting the best deal, but also that they aren't being ripped off in any way. The proliferation of shopping bots (price comparison sites) like bizrate and kelkoo are making this so much easier that it is a real threat to any retailer whose customer goes online. It probably outweighs all the others to the point of making them little more than value-add considerations. For any product that is sold by multiple retailers, this is a major risk to consider, especially now that consumers have the internet on their mobiles and can pretty compare while actually in-store.
   
   
2. Validate product/item quality and function (via online information and reviews before buying)
   For functional products, particularly electronics, I prefer to be sure I'm not wasting my money, particularly on items I can't really test out. I want to know the realities behind the sales blurb and the knockdown price, and right now there's no way of finding this or comparing against equivalents, except online at review sites like CNET.
   
   
3. Avoid instore/cashier queues
   I hate queuing and unless I absolutely need the product then and there, am very likely to just go back home and order it online from somewhere.
   
   
4. Delivery rather than carry home on buses / trains (convenience)
   If it's a hot day, or I've already got things with me, or I'm on my way to somewhere else, or I just generally am not feeling like trekking around laden with shopping bags, I'm very likely to head home and make the order online, ideally from somewhere with free or cheap delivery/postage, or even somewhere that lets me pick-up in store at some later more convenient time.
   
   
5. Search for variant availability in other stores
   If the store doesn't have my size, or the colour I want, or the specific variant of the product that's customised the way I want it, I'm most likely going to leave the store and go online to see if any other branches have it, or if another shop stocks it instead. As with all the other drivers to online browsing, the problem is that I may never actually bother with the product any further, or even bother to go that particular retailer's website instead of someone else's.
   
   
6. Leverage online promotions / vouchers
   I know that retailers set these up to encourage people to go online, but essentially all this does is cannibalise offline sales, because the vouchers are not redeemable in-store. Personally I feel this is a major inhibitor to developing symbiotic revenue channels.

Other reasons for buying online rather than in-store

• Easier payment through one-click accounts (e.g. Amazon)
  Who wants go through the whole business of queuing, waiting for someone else to scan and pack your product, handing cards over and waiting for it to register chip and pin and so on, when you can simply select the item, click once and then sit back and wait for it to turn up? Why don't stores have this facility?
  
  
• Accessories for product listings
  I find this very useful online. If I buy a camera in-store at PC World, I get a camera, but absolutely no information to help me consider useful accessories. If I buy the same product on their website I get a list of accessories that supplement that product – appropriate lenses, cases, leads, cards etc.
  
  
• Related product listings and “Other people bought this” type information
  Similar to above, I like shopping for things in spaces where I'm provided with ideas for complementary items. If I'm buying a badminton racket, then what about related bags, shoes, apparel, shuttles etc. I don't want to have to walk around some sports super store to find the matching bag in the bag section, or shoes in the shoe section etc. If I'm buying jeans I want to see shoes or t-shirts that might go well – ok so I personally am not enough of a shopper to care about this on a clothes front, but I can imagine a whole bunch of people who do, and sometimes knowing what other people bought is excellent fodder for shopping ideas.
  
  
• Auto-history of purchases – leading to seller recommendations
  The problem with buying in-store, even from the same store, is that there is no history of what you bought. What if you wanted the same item you bought two years ago, but can't remember what it's called? What if you don't really know what you want to buy, but just feel like a quick bit of retail therapy? Isn't it great to be able to go onto your Amazon store and see lists of items that might just be interesting based on things you've bought before? Buying on website like this is like walking into a shop to buy an iPod, and the shop floor assistant suggesting an iRiver because it's more compatible with the speaker system you bought last week, and then handing you a selection of music that you just might like. How convenient, and how much more of an incentive to check the product out online after seeing it in-store.

The major issue for high street retailers here, is that once the consumer leaves the store and goes online, the only reason for them to visit the same store's website would be if the product identified is completely specific to that brand, for e.g. a particular clothing item. In any other case, the user's online journey will very likely lead them elsewhere… somewhere cheaper, with a more fulfilling retail experience; so understanding and countering these drivers will be key success criteria against online competition.

In parts 2 and 3, I'll consider the concept of the High Street 2.0 and try and use some of the above drivers to suggest ideas for leveraging on-line value-adds in-store, and to discuss how retailers can begin to create the next generation high street.

Waterfall is the standard process oriented methodology employed by most (particularly large) organisations that need rigorous procedural control and auditability. It is particularly relevant for client side work because it involves a step by step process with a relay race approach involving up front analysis costing and estimation, and an incremental project life cycle with different skills being employed at different periods, thus allowing resource to be managed more easily. It is also easier to certify and compare against standards, and the focus on documentation means that there are easy reference points and improved knowledge transfer among the people involved. Organisations like to work this way, and people get comfortable with it because it can allow them to point fingers when things go wrong, and can remove the need to change and be flexible.

Agile comes at projects from a completely different angle, placing the onus firmly on people rather than process. It does away with documentation that does not add immediate value to the project development, and to be successful requires all team members to be more cross functional and work together in a fluid supportive way, dependent on a high level of goal congruence and motivation. It is a trust based approach that is not easy to tick off against quality standards, but much easier to measure against return on investment. It provides high visibility on outputs and relevance, and allows for much greater client side involvement and ultimately satisfaction, and delivers greater recognition for team achievement. However the lack of documentation raises risk in areas of knowledge transfer, trust is fragile across organisations, and Agile does not necessarily deliver whole projects any faster. Organisations are rarely set up to cope with Agile requirements, but professionals like to work this way because it allows them to control the way they work and they don't have to waste time on non-core activity that detracts from delivery.

The point to note is that client based work, particularly for clients with limited or no Agile experience, and/or delivery with novice (R1) or limited experience Agile teams, has both pros and cons. In the rush to sell or implement Agile against Waterfall, the cons are often ignored, but these must be recognised and mitigated against if you want your Agile project to really be successful.

The following is a brief outline of both the pros and cons of Waterfall and Agile you can use as a starter for ten.

Something that continues to amaze me is the fact that while the whole point of blogging is to share and communicate your thoughts and experiences to the wider world out there, the interactivity built into blogging software and formats is shockingly limited. If I wanted to communicate in a static way I'd put up a web-page not a blog. I put up blogs because I want them to become seeds for discussion points - to get other people involved and to get involved in return. But the only mechanism for discourse provided on most blogs is a space to comment. All very well, but once someone has commented, how can I, as the author or even participant, explore or take that thread of thought to its conclusion if I can't respond specifically to that comment? Writing another comment on the blog is not the same thing. They need to be linked.

And that in a nutshell is why most people just lurk and never bother to comment, and why I believe that while blogs sometimes make interesting reading, as a community tool they are dead in the water until their structure changes to become more like discussion threads. I can't see any reason for why blog softwares don't do this as standard, other than its just the way they originally started in the primitive days of when web logs were simply online diaries - and that basic and static format has since become the norm.

The funny thing is that I see blogs as clearly the logical next step in online discussion, but while forums and discussion threads seem to be dying out or surviving firmly in computer geek world, few sites out there seem to be making the simple connection and evolving blogging software to enable this extension. This blog format of course is a perfect point in case. Go ahead and comment. You know I can't really reply and we can't really discuss this further. Not that satisfying is it??