Welcome to the latest edition of Inside Looking Out. This past week, I spoke with Russ McGuire. Russ is vice president of strategy for Sprint...you know the guys who sell the Pre and the Hero. Russ is responsible for developing the strategic vision and strategic framework for the $35B+ telecommunications giant.
I first spoke with Russ a couple of weeks ago...just two members and aficionados of the enterprise mobility blogosphere (he also runs his own blog). What a great discussion that was. We followed up that call this past week and I got one heck of an executive view on enterprise mobility to share with you today.
Enterprise Mobility Matters: Hi Russ. Thanks for taking the time to chat with me today. I know you must be swamped, so let's get to it. Where do you see the greatest opportunity for growth in enterprise mobility?
Russ McGuire: I think the magnitude of opportunities almost can’t be fathomed. I believe we are on the early side of the Mobility Revolution, which will have as big of an impact on how business is conducted as the Internet Revolution and the PC Revolution. I believe the outcome of the Mobility Revolution is that mobility becomes integrated into virtually every product that has a power source, into every service that businesses offer, and into every process that exists within business – just as microprocessors/PCs and IP connectivity have been completely integrated into businesses. This revolution will redefine how we, as individuals, interact with the world and how businesses compete across industries. Bottom line, it’s huge.
I would specifically point to three areas of huge growth within the enterprise space. The first is pure bandwidth – mobile broadband. Mostly today that means 3G data cards, but 4G is coming on very rapidly. The second area of huge growth is in mobile business applications – software that runs on the handset that employees use to do their jobs. The third area is in machine-to-machine – the embedding of wireless connectivity into devices that businesses use to more efficiently and effectively operate core processes.
EMM: After email, what’s the next killer application for mobility in the enterprise?
RM: I don’t think there is a single killer app for enterprise mobility. I believe the driver of growth in mobility in the enterprise is having an open development platform that leverages secure IP connectivity with unique mobile characteristics including location, presence, and personal identity. This environment enables existing applications to be extended to the mobile workforce, but more importantly, it enables new types of applications that can’t currently be imagined – in the same way that the browser did in the late 1990s and the PC did in the 1980s.
EMM: There’s a huge push to make mobile devices more "consumer friendly" – including integration with tools such as Facebook or Twitter. How does this impact the workplace that is "supposed" to be serious?
RM: What do you mean by "workplace?" One of the huge impacts of mobility has been the "convergence" of our separate personal and work lives into one, always connected life. Sure, a worker may check Facebook between 9 and 5 occasionally on his mobile device, but he’s also tremendously more likely to respond to an urgent work e-mail at 7pm in the evening now that his mobile device allows him to be always connected. Dealing with the dangers of both allowing personal use to encroach into the "workplace" and allowing work stresses to encroach on personal life is critical, both for individual employees and management. But thematically, it’s no different than the management lessons that needed to be learned as browsers crept onto workers’ desktops a decade ago.
EMM: There’s a growing debate on individually liable vs. corporate liable devices – especially in the context of mobility management. What’s your take on it?
RM: There wouldn’t be a debate if the issues between IL and CL were simple. On one hand, the fact that we have "convergence" between our personal and work lives means that we’re either going to have to deal with a personal device being used for work, or a work device being used for personal entertainment. Either of those scenarios creates challenges for the IT department tasked with stewardship of corporate resources, security of valuable intellectual property, and reliability of critical operating processes. I tend to believe that a corporate liable model is the most manageable approach which will enable enterprises to achieve the full power of mobility in their business, but neither model is perfect and both models can work.
EMM: Unlike the desktop space, there are six major platforms today in enterprise mobility (i.e., Android, BlackBerry, iPhone, Symbian, webOS and Windows Mobile). Is that sustainable for an IT department?
RM: For a single IT department, supporting robust mobile applications across six platforms (or even three) can’t be sustainable. However, at this point, different businesses are likely to have drivers that lead them to adopt different platforms. I don’t see the market rationalizing down significantly in the next few years.
EMM: Android is certainly making a lot of noise in the market. Can open source thrive in enterprise mobility in a way that it hasn’t historically? (i.e., there aren’t many corporate desktops running Linux)?
RM: I don’t think it’s an appropriate comparison to judge Android’s enterprise mobility fitness by counting the number of Linux corporate desktops. In my opinion, Linux on the desktop still struggles in terms of the user experience compared to Windows and Macintosh desktops, and by the time Linux was even a potential option for the enterprise desktop, Windows was firmly entrenched. The barrier to change was very high (applications, management infrastructure, etc.), so Linux really hasn’t had a fair chance to succeed on the corporate desktop.
Android, on the other hand, has as strong of a starting position as any other platform for enterprise mobility. No platforms are yet so embedded that they couldn’t easily be displaced, and Android has quickly reached general parity with Windows Mobile and RIM Blackberry from a user experience perspective. Furthermore, Android appears to be quickly winning the support of independent developers which undoubtedly will increase its appeal in the enterprise – both in terms of user demand and in terms of the supply of applications and developers that enterprises will need to change the rules of competition across all industries. In short, yes, I do believe that open source can thrive in enterprise mobility.
EMM: One last question Russ. When do you think we’re going to see the smartphone be a viable replacement for the laptop? Will that ever be possible?
RM: Just as the PC did a poor job of replacing the mainframe, I seriously doubt that the smartphone will replace the PC. What do most people use their laptops for? I would guess there are five PC uses that are pretty common for most knowledge workers: E-mail, Web browsing, function-specific applications, word processing, and spreadsheets.
Smartphones have done pretty well at extending e-mail to the mobile worker, and browsing has gotten significantly better (although some forms of web use will always be better suited to a big screen with precise mouse control). In contrast, I believe that word processing and spreadsheets will always be a challenge on a smartphone.
However, it is in function-specific applications that the whole story is told. Mobile devices create the potential for function-specific applications to make the same level of leap that we’ve seen in each of the previous technology revolutions. The ways in which we work will change radically over the next decade so that many of us will no longer need a laptop, but I wouldn’t say it is because the smartphone has become a better laptop, rather it will be because mobility has redefined every aspect of how our businesses operate and compete.
Well there you have it. Thank you Russ for taking the time to chat with me today. If interested, you can connect with Russ on LinkedIn here. Do you know anyone who should be a guest here on Inside Looking Out? Drop me a line.
