Microsoft CRM 2011: Enterprise software, meet consumer expectations

By Mary Jo Foley

As much as some may wish for Microsoft to abandon the consumer market and refocus on its enterprise business, that’s not going to happen.
Instead, what is increasingly happening is business-focused products and groups at Microsoft are integrating more and more concepts and features that many consider “consumer”-oriented rather than “business”-focused.
That point was driven home to me last week during a meeting I had with Craig Unger, the General Manager who heads up R&D for Dynamics CRM. Unger has been at Microsoft for almost 20 years, starting back when he worked on Excel 4 and 5 as a designer. The past four years, he’s been working on Dynamics CRM.
As I blogged previously, with the 2011 release of Microsoft CRM, the Redmondians did something unprecedented (for Microsoft): They rolled out the online version of the product before the on-premises version. Until I chatted with Unger, I didn’t really think about the kinds of changes on the back-end that rollout strategy required.
“How do we take enterprise software and mesh that with consumer expectations of how advances should arrive?” Unger asked. That was a key question for the hundreds of Softies who worked on the CRM 5/CRM 2011 release for the past three years, he said.
The team had to switch up everything from the kinds of engineering and test processes it conducted, to how it structured its pre-release programs. The CRM team had to “make sure we used our calendar time so that new development processes were running in parallel,” he said.
“There was no more ‘wall’ to throw the (finished) code over,” Unger said. Instead, there was a single team working on the online and on-premises versions of the product from the get-go.
In terms of specific “consumer-friendly” features, the CRM team also for the first time delivered the product in 40 languages simultaneously by creating a language codepack that gets installed alongside the single core codebase. The language pack allows any organization to decide on any customized subset of languages for its workforce.
Unger cited the try-before-you-buy option for the new 2011 release as another example of how the “consumerization of IT” is having an impact on Microsoft’s directions.
“This (easy-to-sign-up-for trial) is a whole different model for enterprise software,” he said.
In a world where users expect regular updates, rather than waiting for two to three years for a “major” update, the rules are different, Unger said.
Unger’s comments made me think back to former Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie’s 2005 “Internet Services Disruption” memo. Ozzie wrote:

“Products must now embrace a ‘discover, learn, try, buy, recommend’ cycle – sometimes with one of those phases being free, another ad-supported, and yet another being subscription-based. Grassroots adoption requires an end-to-end perspective related to product design. Products must be easily understood by the user upon trial, and useful out-of-the-box with little or no configuration or administrative intervention.”

Ozzie has moved on now, but it looks like his advice is starting to take hold….

Apple's CEO succession plan: All we need to know is that it exists

By Sam Diaz

Years ago, when my kids were still wearing diapers and drinking from bottles, my wife and I decided that we needed a game plan in case something happened to either of us. Having that conversation was a very sobering experience, discussing all of the “what if” scenarios that could leave one of us as a single parent - or worse yet, leave our kids as orphans.
That last scenario is the worst. But, at one point, when she and I were heading on a cruise vacation that also involved a flight, we decided that we needed to put our wishes into writing - just in case we didn’t make it back. And so we did - we wrote down our wishes for how our kids would be raised, put the document into a sealed envelope and put it away.
Here’s the thing, though: We only told two people where that document could be found - our insurance agent (whom we know well) and a close friend. If something happened to us, they surely would hear about it and would be able to tell our parents where that document could be found.
Who we didn’t tell were our parents - not because we didn’t trust them, but because we didn’t want to offend or hurt anyone’s feelings about the path we’d chosen for our children. What if they didn’t agree with our plan and it caused an argument or bad feelings? Certainly, that’s not what we would want.
I share this story because the push for Apple to publicly disclose its CEO succession plan is grabbing headlines again. Now that Steve Jobs, a pancreatic cancer survivor who underwent a liver transplant in the summer of 2009, has taken yet another medical leave, shareholders are once again concerned about the fate of the company if Jobs takes a turn for the worst.
They have been calling for a public release of the succession plan - and now, the Institutional Shareholder Services has endorsed that push, according to a Financial Times report, adding more heat to an already sensitive topic. Apple, which says it has a succession plan in place is, of course, resisting such a disclosure.
When Jobs went on medical leave the last time and left Chief Operating Office Tim Cook in charge, there was a healthy debate on this blog as to whether Jobs - as an individual - had an expectation of privacy about his medical condition or whether the shareholders had a right to know more about something that could very well have a material impact on the company’s future.
At this point, I’m inclined to side with Apple on this one. I agree that the shareholders should expect the company to step up with reassurances that Apple’s executives and board of directors have talked about succession and have a plan in place in case it’s needed.
But do we really need to know the details of the plan? Personally, I’m satisfied in knowing that an actual plan has been established. That’s good enough for me - and should be good enough for anyone else.
Not only does that help Jobs maintain some privacy during what must be an incredibly difficult time for him but it also avoids the armchair quarterbacking that’s sure to take place if the details are released. I can already imagine the frenzy of blog posts and TV talk show chatter that will try to break down every detail of that plan, pointing out anything and everything that could be perceived as a flaw or shortcoming.
Do we really need that sort of chatter around Apple - a company that beats all metrics when it comes to products, innovation and financial performance? While Jobs may be “the man” at Apple, it is not a company of one person. There are a number of talented and smart people on payroll - and, as illustrated during Jobs’ last medical leave, the company didn’t fall apart when he needed to step aside temporarily.
We can continue to have all of these discussions about succession plans - but at the end of the day, Apple would be smart to keep that plan in a sealed envelope, stashed away safely with the lawyers and out of the public eye.
If I were a shareholder, I’d be satisfied just knowing that there’s a plan in place.