1/ "Consumerization of IT" bit of tired phrase. There’s a much more important shift with changing role of biz productivity software. We're in a new era where software solutions can be more like office "supplies" than office "buildings".

• Cloud distribution, mobile usage
• Articulated problem/soln
• Solves problem right away
• Network and/or viral component
• Bundled solns bloated and horizontal (old tools do too much/not enough)
• Min. Infrastruct Reqs
• Design for end-users incl onboard—duh!
• Require no IT infra
• Use language of target biz ppl
• Growth "work products", not growing amount of usage
• Leverage "producers" and "consumers"
• Start IT acceptance (integrations!)
• Partner w/ BigCo even competitors
• Amplify producer/consumer w/ analytics, data about work, extranet collab
• Expand breadth, not depth—solve new problems
• Organic takeup doesn’t scale forever. CAC for n+1 >> n. Careful spending too much too soon.
• Pricing needs to be friction free early on
• GTM matters immensely. @martin_casado offers super smart insights https://t.co/XaCMrZF5PH
0/ Traditional enterprise GTM strategies are being eaten from the bottom by bottoms up adoption (SaaS, open source, dev tooling) and from the top by services.
— martin_casado (@martin_casado) September 30, 2018
More from All
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?