5 easy questions from Sun

After writing my post on innovation a couple of days ago, I remembered a conversation I had with some guys at Sun around the same time.

These guys ran Sun's R&D centre in the USA and are tasked with developing new technologies and business ideas for Sun. Sun also had their view on Innovation with a little i or Innovation with a big I. They called it "faster,better, cheaper" or "brave new world".

As part of their role in creating an environment where innovation could flourish,  they gave each staff member a day a week to work on anything they liked. The only limits were 

1. The project had to be declared (ie you had to say what it was)

2. You couldn't spend more than $500 (i.e. creates scarcity which requires some kind of innovation to overcome it)

3. You have to answer 5 questions to start

They are simple to ask, searching and they work.

The questions are

1. What's the problem you are trying to solve ?

2. Who is it for ?

3. How will you know when you are done ?

4. What's the artefact you are creating ?

5.  How would shareholder value be increased through this idea ?

In a corporate world, question 3 can be the hardest to answer as you can often really never know when you are done. Having an honest answer to this upfront makes it easier to weed out the ideas later on when it is clear you'll never be done.

I use these all the time now when I am testing a new business idea for myself or others. They are also really useful when you get too far down the hole and need to remind yourself why you are doing what you are doing.

Start Up lessons and Agile Development

Really enjoying the DogMog blog at the moment - another thoughtful post today from Sarah on the process of selecting a developer, designer, methodology and requirements.

I posted about Agile Development a while back. Agile didn't work for that project IMHO- the lesson I learned from that is that both the business owner and the developer have to agree to and then commit to using Agile. From a business owners perspective that means ideally sitting with (if not working with) the actual developer (not their representative) daily. Without that its just waterfall under a different name. Enough said.

Media is a long-game - Apple shows the way

Great to see movies available on iTunes in NZ today. I have a US account that I have been using for buying movies, music, TV shows and apps but have used it sporadically based on the hassle of getting credit into my account as I don't have a US credit card.

Today's announcement has reminded me of how important it is to have a long-term view if you are going to enter the media market.

I've been lucky enough to be involved in the majority of Telecom NZ's media offerings over the last 7 years. There will be a bunch of you who are disparaging about Telecom's efforts here - fair enough.

The one thing that frustrated me the most was the lack of a commitment to a long-term plan by Telecom to its media strategy. Basically, depending on the exec involved, it veered from one play to the next, driven by short term objectives. This is not just true of Telecom - other telcos and ISPs locally have had the same approach, and Vodafone globally and locally has been schizophrenic about its approach.

Apple's approach is driven by an appreciation about the fundamentals of the media industry.

1. It is not possible to make money in media over the short-term or even the medium-term. The margins are too slim - less than 10%. Over a long term - say 5 years - with a consistent approach, all those individual sales of low margin items add up, you build an audience and then you can monetise that in other ways (including advertising). Apple is starting to look more and more like a pay TV play the way it is going with apps and media sales. Check the graph - 5 billion songs in 5 years!

2. The media business is built on relationships - no relationships, no trust, no deal. I like dealing with media people if only for the fact you can legitimately talk for hours with them trying to find common ground and that is a legitimate business reason.

It's basically a long tail with people relationships. Today's announcement by Apple is about adding some more to that long tail.

This appreciation has meant that Apple has been able to work through the Universal issues, release DRM-free music and, its my pick, will be the first store to launch Beatles tracks - the Holy Grail for some at least.

Planning on a media play for your business ? Don't go there unless you have a 5 year plan and the support to go with it.

Telecom 850 WCDMA - more developments?

Juha posted on the rumours of a delay to the launch to Telecom's WCDMA network. I have no further detail but it's got me thinking some more.

I've been doing a lot more sniffing around on the handset situation for Telecom should they decide to move to 850 WCDMA as part of their UMTS roll-out.

Based on my last post suggesting it needs to be driven by coverage, handsets and pricing for customers, it's clear that there is a potential long-term coverage play for Telecom in all of this. However handsets are the key.

It's my opinion that, should Telecom go down this path, they should only look at one radio spec for their handsets. That is quad-band GSM and a least dual band WCDMA (850 / 2100). Throw in 1900 WCDMA if you can get it, but given that is primarily a US driven requirement and they have rolled 850 WCDMA there 1900 is not a mandatory requirement.

The reason behind choosing a single spec handset is that Telecom can then run a very simple and effective long-run campaign for its customers : 

Buy any Next Gen Mobile Telecom handset and you can roam anywhere around the world and have the best coverage for voice and data here or overseas. Period. 

Very strong coverage position to take and one that could put Vodafone on the backfoot for quite a period of time.

My reasoning for this spec, as opposed to a local spec for 850 only devices and 850 /2100 devices for 'Worldmode' is simple. 

1. Remove a confusing choice for customers about whether they might or might not want to travel somewhere in the world with their mobile. With this spec they can travel anywhere. The last thing you want a customer to have to check is what band their mobile is before they travel - there is usually too much to do anyway!

2. Take a position on coverage that Vodafone can't match - Fastest data here and around the world, where-ever you go.

Key driver for this is handsets. A couple of days of searching the 'net and this is a mixed picture.

On the positive side there is the number 1 handset vendor globally, Nokia, who have a range of 13 devices that meet this criteria. Not bad until you see that their overall range for GSM 900 / UMTS 2100 stands at 58. Still, much better than the days of TDMA and CDMA where the Nokia devices available were around 3-4 vs. 50 -60. The other positive is around iPhone. Will provide great coverage for the 3G iPhone. However this will probably neutralise Vodafone locally at best as they will have mopped up most of the early adopters, notwithstanding supply chain issues from Apple.

On the negative side - there just aren't very many other providers of this spec. A look at GSMArena shows Sony Ericsson has 6, Samsung has 1 and these are out of ranges of around 40 for Sony Ericsson and 70 for Samsung. HTC also has a few and then the numbers dwindle after that.

Overall the answer is that the range is good enough, however there is very little negotiating leverage for Telecom with such a small range of providers. That will probably drive up cost of sale temporarily. The temptation for Telecom will be to buy a cheap handset that reduces cost of sale. That is a short term game. 

Do. Not. Do. That. 

If there is one thing that I have learned from 15 years of deploying AMPS, D-AMPS, CDPD and CDMA it's that as soon as you bow to this short-term demand then you are forever trying to paper over the cracks.

Thinking long-term would mean the following

1. Build strong and deep relationships with 4-5 handset vendors. Don't nickle and dime them.

2. Don't launch until you have a nationwide NZ 850 WCDMA network - start with a superior local coverage position and hold it all the way through.

3. Buy a handset spec that gives best global roaming. And only one spec please!

4. Price data on a 10 year return on infrastructure, not 3.

The pain will be taking a hit on Mobile market share until this launches. Given how low the share-price is now, I think this is probably priced in already according to Valuecruncher.

Why would Telecom NZ launch an 850 MHz UMTS network?

Mauricio posted this rumour earlier today that Telecom is looking at UMTS at 850 MHz on a nationwide basis. I have no idea if this is true or not but I thought I'd assess it in advance on the off-chance it is true.

In my experience over the last 15 years with Mobile network deployments there have been a bunch of hypotheses about what you can do to attract customers to your network. These have included products and services, video, social networking - all the 'next big things'. 

In the end, it does not matter about differentiating on features and services if you haven't got three basics at the same level as the rest of the market. In order, they are

1. Coverage (Where can I use it?)

2. Handsets / Devices (What devices are available?)

3. Price (How much does it cost? Can I afford it?)

This is what customers repeatedly have told me when I have asked them what is important. In fact, given the benefits of mobility customers surprisingly rate Price significantly lower than coverage or handsets.

Most of Telecom's strategic errors around mobile have been when they have forgotten about these 3 fundamental truths - in particular the first. I consider roaming as part of coverage - and Telecom has been on the back-foot here for about a decade. In particular, apart from a period recently when these elements were equal, most of Telecom's major losses in market share have occured when the people involved in setting strategy have been too worried about the economics and trying to engineer a short-term position. But I am off topic now.

Back to the rumour - Why would Telecom look at this particular path?

Marketing wise, they have been saying that they have the best nationwide data network (true - CDMA in NZ is still the best natiowide mobile data networ) and a global roaming proposition (true). The issue is that it's a very limited range of devices that can handle this and when it comes to data, a key part of mobile now, the global proposition is non-existent for UMTS. Worldmode phones, while great, only operate on GPRS as far as I know. And there is a very small selection - 3 at my count out of the portfolio of 24.

This position gets even worse with the current stated proposition for WCDMA. 3 urban cities at launch and  nationwide EDGE network. Not good enough. It reminds me of BellSouth's entry into the NZ market. Lots of marketing and a very inferior coverage proposition. Many years after Vodafone bought BellSouth and had pretty much equalised on coverage , I still had Telecom customers tell me they were still with Telecom because of the vastly superior coverage. Power of brand...

So a quick assessment of the speculated 850MHz nationwide network. Why would Telecom do this?

1. Coverage - given the current plan this would provide a massive boost for local data coverage, allowing Telecom to switch off its CDMA network earlier. It doesn't add anything significant for global roaming. The global roaming game is at 2100 MHz for WCDMA - end of story. Anyone trying to convince you of anything else is dreaming.

2. Handsets - This is the tough one to swallow. This strategy does not help the handset situation at all. It means a more specific spec for handsets which means less range to select from. My guess is that Telecom will be forced to run a reduced portfolio compared to Vodafone locally. All they can do is ensure they have a set of choices for each price-point . Shouldn't be an issue at the mid-range but I would anticipate issues at the low-end and the high-end. Telecom may try and offer low-end at CDMA. This would follow the same path tried for trying to maximise the value of the TDMA network. That didn't work. This won't either. Don't do it!!!

3. Price - Telecom will have a relatively empty WCDMA network. Where they could really do well is if they do what Vodafone didn't do when they launched their 3G network. Offer a really sharp data plan. 

So, if you are an investor in Telecom stocks consider the following

1. If Telecom announce an 850 MHz network AND can talk to a reasonable set of handsets tomorrow then this is very good news. Especially if the focus is coverage and handsets as opposed to video services etc. If CDMA closure is announced, even better. Means that the long-term picture for Telecom's mobile business is built on a reasonable foundation. 

2. If there is no word on 850 MHz network then it is too late for this to be available for launch - doesn't rule it out but means another year of pain in Mobile. Whether you hold or sell will depend on the commentary around mobile.

3. If the rumour is squashed and the focus is all on ecosytems of products and services then be very very worried. Those don't matter if you don't have coverage and handsets sorted. Value down the mobile component of the business and cash-out while you can.

If it was me, I'd do the following

1. Roll out 2100 UMTS as far as you can - aim to make this the core of the network. take the capital hit now and a long-term view on return

2. Backfill with 850 UMTS - necessary evil and provides a short-term coverage advantage if you go full nationwide. Or worst case equalises this position.

3. Aim to close down CDMA in 3 years. Most customers will swap out their handsets in this period anyway. Find ways to make this work without blowing cost of sale.

4. Introduce an all you can eat data plan that goes where Vodafone can't easily follow  - look for their profit pool and nuke it. Great for customers and great for the revenue line.

Rugby 2.0

I've been spending some time with the team at Telecom who are hooked into Yahoo!. A few of them have come back from a trip recently where they went to Web2.0 and also spent some time with Yahoo! discussing strategy.

Their overall summary was that Y! have got a very solid strategy around Web 2.0 to the point where they are coming up with tools that will make Y! services better but also will work well with other Web 2.0 services. A case in point is the feed on this blog from Plaxo Pulse, a 'social network' tool I am using. It is a feed from Plaxo in Blogger using a third party widget. That widget relies on using pipes from Y! to work. Doesn't drive any traffic as such to Y! (well not yet) but I now know how to use it and can use it with other Y! services. They are embracing OpenID. They open applications like Flickr up to work with other apps. This all ties to Y! understanding that their purpose is all about advertising. They don't have to be number 1 in all the verticals as long as they embrace the fact that they operate within a broader ecosystem, and they use the elements within that to drive a strong position in their focal point - advertising. Sure they are not perfect - however they are better positioned than most.

They get they are part of bigger picture that inevitably they won’t control
They know what their key assets are (traffic).
They know what their revenue model is (advertising)
They open up to drive more traffic.

It’s pretty simple.

I'm on a plane writing this and have just read a number of articles from the Herald about the state of rugby in NZ. They are individual opinions that state amongst other things

- Convening players for AB camp early doesn't make sense as they are our number 1 asset and need rest so we can keep on winning
- Springboks are having to choose between Euro contracts and playing for their country - this is generally portrayed as the players are greedy so let’s stick it to them (rapacious is the word used to describe them)
- The sabbatical idea for Dan Carter is silly and we should just open the gates to picking players wherever they are playing and be commercially smart to make $
- NZRU have failed and are too arrogant to admit it.

So putting the Kiwi knocking machine to one side (I mean, who is arrogant - the NZRU or the reporter for saying they are?), I was thinking about a remodelling of NZ Rugby based on web 2.0 principles. Let’s call it NZ Rugby 2.0

It would start with a few principles

1. Rugby is a global, and professional game that provides unprecedented choice for players, administrators and audiences.
2. There are local, regional and global competitions where Rugby is available for audiences
3. It is open - there is no one authority that controls it apart from setting basic standards (i.e. IRB is about setting rules for playing the game and maybe the global competition - the rest is devolved)
4. NZ Rugby cannot survive on its own – it has to contribute to and operate within the global ecosystem.

Under this NZ Rugby would need to be very clear about what its purpose is. At the moment it is trying to be too many things

1. The global leader in playing rugby
2. Sustaining the amateur game
3. Controlling player movement
4. A successful business.

Under NZ Rugby 2.0, I would propose that it has a single purpose

- Become the number 1 brand in rugby entertainment with audiences, broadcasters and players.


It would also recognise that the two key assets it has are

1. The All Blacks Brand
2. The systems that produce professional players and coaches.
3. The AB’s coach

In a radical view I would say that the actual players are not key assets - sure they are assets but in general they have limited life and are subject to high maintenance costs. The system that produces them is definitely the key asset.


The revenue model is simple

1. Broadcast and internet rights – AB matches and other professional games
2. Merchandising – AB merchandising needs to get to the same scale as professional football. New kits every year.
3. Gate sales – these will have to go up – this is the ultimate supply / demand constraint (only so many seats in a stadium). Can be justified if the A team is on the park.
4. Transfer fees – if Northern Hemisphere clubs are going to continue to pay huge $ for players then take a slice.


The key implications on the existing organisation are

1. This organisation cannot be the same organisation that manages the amateur game. It would have to support it (with funding and players) but the purposes are just two different to manage.
2. Forget about trying to control player drain – instead embrace it and use these players as a way to influence the broader ecosystem. In particular re-jigging the global competition structures. Retain the right to call on players to play for the All Blacks to develop that brand. Global player movement builds that brand. Don’t just limit that to the Dan Carters of the game. That is anti-competitive and short sighted (imagine – DC gets injured while on ‘sabbatical’ and now Nick Evans can’t be called up – doh!).
3. Coach becomes really important – he is the guy that pulls a team together from a bunch of guys spread around the world and substantiates the AB’s brand.
4. Communicate like hell with stakeholders – ask them what they really want and rapidly adapt to suit.
5. Governance needs to change – the NZRU model of the provincial unions deciding the make-up of the Board is totally out of date.
6. NZ Rugby is an exporter to a global market – big shift in perspective.

If you think this is without evidence have a look at Argentina. Most of their players are playing the Northern Hemisphere. They were 3rd in the last world Cup beating France to get there.

If the best players were on the park I might start turning up or tuning in to watch again.

Playing with Yahoo!

I've been spending a bit of time playing around with the Yahoo! products available through Yahoo!Xtra.

I generally use this at home on my mac and was kind of disappointed that Pro Mail was not officially compatible with either Safari or Firefox. It seems there have been some upgrades recently which means that this compatibility now exists - works much faster on both browsers making it a much more useful service.

I was talking to the team at Telecom about the roadmap for more improvements - can't say anything too specific about them, but from the screenshots I saw, the evolution of this product is simply stunning. Expect to see more this year with a more social networking orientation and a better calendar product as well. The speed they are moving at is phenomenal. They are embracing OpenId very enthusiastically so expect to see more of an ecosystem approach from the team at Y!. Interesting observation from our team - our use of webmail in NZ is really low compared to the US - wonder why that is?

There is a blog from their developers if you want to know more about what they are doing with the mail product.

The other piece of capability I have been playing with is Yahoo! pipes.

I found this while trying to get comments from Plaxo Pulse integrated into my blog (more on that later - it isn't quite working yet). Its a great piece of capability - allows me to build, manipulate and output feeds by dragging modules around, applying filters and connecting them up. Brilliant - even I can (kinda) make it work.

There are some real benefits to this relationship in terms of open-ness that we didn't see with our previous partner.

Farewell NGT

Today is my last day at Next Generation Telecom.

I've been working on this programme for the last 18 months or so and we've been able to get it from the feasibility work completed by Group Strategy, through a very rigorous design phase now going into Build.

It's been a hard road - we had quite a frustrating period as we went through the change in leadership at Telecom. It was necessary - we weren't really ready to move forward.
I am personally very pleased at where we've ended up.

NGT was described in the investor briefing session yesterday. There is a lot sitting behind this slide which comes from the Retail Briefing.

We started this phase with 3 of us in a room having 2 'AHA' moments.

1. We will not be able to compete as a Retailer in the market on product differentiation based on Network. Everyone can pretty much have the same stuff. What we can differentiate on is service.

2. We don't know how to design 'properly' for the customer - we have to learn.

We now have a team of close to 100 including our partners at Tech Mahindra, we have a brand promise that we are designing for that will be a game changer in NZ. The people building NGT are now first and foremost advocates for the customer and have the skills and capability to make that work for NZ. We have personas we are designing to, we are directly validating our design with customers, we are constantly challenging what we are doing to deliver to the customer. This is a very different Telecom.

It's been a privilege for me to be part of this team - I have learned a lot and worked with some amazing people. Thank you.

I'll be taking some time out from today and working with the Retail Broadband business at Telecom until the end of June. The rest of the year I will have my hands full with 2 year old Ella and trying to turn a couple of good ideas into good businesses.

*You* are the brand

Picked this up of Seth Godin's blog the other day where he talks about the posture of a communicator.

What's helpful is to realize that you have a choice when you communicate.
You can design your products to be easy to use. You can write so your audience
hears you. You can present in a place and in a way that guarantees that the
people you want to listen will hear you. Most of all, you get to choose who will
understand (and who won't).

And I've tied it to another quote that I really like

“A customer-aware company gets bonus points for its intentions and rhetoric, but
negative points for doing little or nothing to build processes and structures
that allow the organization to deliver consistently and transparently for the
customer.

A customer-centric company matches intention and attention. It
does the hard work of threading enterprise-wide customer experience initiatives
across the silos and specialized functions, through the processes, and down to
and through the technologies and human factors in order to deliver for the
customer and the organization.” (Kevin Hoffberg)

Whether you know it or not, you have a brand promise that you make your customers. And everything you do during your day will impact on how your customers perceive you delivering to that promise. Even more, things you don't do will all impact customer perception.You need to know what your brand promise is and how what you do impacts on that.

Just today I have

- designed some identity frameworks

- completed a weekly report

- reviewed my planning structure

- had team meeting

- completed my expenses

- had a conversation about how we could collaborate better

- had 4 conversations about how we can improve delivering a new business

-overheard 3 people discuss how they feel we are heading for a bad result and don't know what to do about it

-debated whether we are a process centric or customer centric organisation (they are the same !)

-met my family for coffee

- Written this entry

Based on delivering the brand promise, I've hit about 40 - 50% of things that are important to deliver on the brand promise and 50 - 60% of things that are necessary (but not important). I think it should be more like 80/20.

What's your day been like?

Necessity is the mother of invention

Or maybe it's this

"Financial security is the greatest inhibitor of creativity that mankind has ever known"

I'm not sure if its the 'greatest inhibitor of creativity' but I'd have to say that it's up there. In previous conversations with HP and Sun on how they manage innovation, their biggest barriers have been internal - people with existing revenue streams who see a new product as a threat to that security.

I've got about 9 weeks left of employment left at Telecom. I can calculate with some degree of accuracy what I will be paid in that period. After that it is, at this point, wide open. I can say, without doubt, that I have had the biggest run of ideas so far in my life. Not all of them are my own - it would be fair to say that I am listening much closer to what people say for triggers for ideas. Not many of them have got to the point where I could say that they are a viable business. I am getting closer though.

Makes me think there are a bunch of people out there who are financially secure who have a bucket of ideas everyday and just keep going. What do you think they are thinking ? It's not how to get the next buck - it must be some kind of internal drive that keeps generating ideas independent of their needs for food and shelter. Maybe its what Maslow meant by self-actualisation ?

Thanks to Simon for the lead to the quote and the audio clip it comes from.

Mobile Commerce replacing bank branches in Australia?

I read this article from stuff this morning. The implication in the lead-in was stunning...

"Australians are fast deserting bank branches and soon won't even need a computer to transact, now that the country's major banks are rolling out mobile phone banking services."

It's stunning because it's wrong. You'd think that you'd soon be able to walk down the main streets of Sydney and not see any bank branches and that we'll all be using our mobiles to transact.

A visit to Australia recently demonstrated that banks are re-opening branches in suburban areas, and are extending opening hours for existing branches into the weekend and after 'normal' working hours. The same trend has been occurring in NZ.

Leads to to 2 questions - one on this topic and one broader.

1. Why are branches important for banks ?

Branches are important for banks as they provide a direct and personal link to their customer. When it comes to high complexity and high value transactions, customers will want to understand the impacts - they won't get this on their mobile, they'll get this by talking to a knowledgable bank employee. Sure banks will continually look for more efficient and more convenient ways to manage high volume, low complexity transactions. That becomes part of the portfolio of choices they offer to customers. It makes sense for banks to offer a multitude of ways - not just one way - to serve their customers. ANZ's Brian Hartzer makes this point in the article. That is the real headline.

2. Why does a belief exist that a new type of technology will totally supercede any existing means?

Maybe it generates headlines - I'd love to know from anyone who has been in the journalist or social marketing fields why it is necessary to be so black and white about this type of thing. Experience says that these changes are slow in coming and you never really know where they land - it is very rare to have one mode totally replaced by another. In this particular case there is no further detail in any of the article that Australians are fast deserting branches - yet the journalist or editor in question seems to think that it's important to know in this article. It isn't and it just seems naive.

Finally, it is good to see that something which has been around for around 5 years in New Zealand is seen to be a big thing about to happen in Australia . A great example of using NZ as a test market before moving to larger markets - best of luck to the M-Com team as they break into a larger population base. They've done a lot of hard work here building a business model and ecosystem - maybe payoff for the hard work is just around the corner....

The power of Free

This video is great - it's a talk by Chris Anderson the editor-in-chief of Wired. He is the author of the much loved 'The Long Tail'. I found it the video on one of Guy Kawasaki's blogs.

His basic premise is this - there is a part of your business now which is a constraint that you have to pay for. What if that constraint wasn't there? What if you treated it as Free? What would that do to your market and your overall proposition?

It's a great talk given at NokiaWorld 2007 very well illustrated with lots of real examples from the Internet and telecommunications world (webmail and mobile in particular) and economics that anyone can understand.

There are a couple of conflicts in what he says (eg artists like Prince giving away music for free to create premium pricing for concerts - Chris hasn't commented on Prince taking legal action against his fans for the use of his likeness on fansites - maybe its another revenue model) and an unfortunate part of his talk where his PC SNAFUs without a graceful recovery.

Those are minor though - the premise is really powerful. Something that you think is a scarce resource, your competitor might be thinking is heading towards free. They act like it's free, you act like its a constraint. When that happens your world is going to get shaken up.

Of course you have to make the right part of your model free - sellmefree for example. There is no constraint for the audience on their primary competitor trademe. Sellmefree have made the wrong part of their model free as Lance and AirNZ have noted. It's free for anyone to browse and buy on trademe so the audience is there, which drives people to sell there. Virtuous cycle - boom.

It would be a bit different if there was no constraint for customers on the amount of a certain product to buy on trademe -and you could buy it at the price it just sold for on auction instantly - no such thing as missing out again. That would make it a meta-retailer (Sam Morgan's words - not mine) as opposed to community marketplace. Maybe the Ferrit model is not so bad after all? Especially when you look at the great deals they have on ipods now.

What would you want to see removed as a constraint now? How would you act if it was free?

Take 45 mins out to watch the video and have a think.

Agile Development

We've been working with a major international Systems Integrator and have been exploring the use of Agile Programming methods for a major (ie 12 month+) project.

While Agile has been well covered in other forums, one of the areas that I note is significantly underplayed is the amount of cultural change required moving from Waterfall techniques to Agile. In particular, I note that people from a Waterfall background *still* want to complete full requirements before moving into the Agile phase - it takes a lot of effort to let go of that security blanket. And on top of that, integrating Agile based deliverables into Waterfall deliverables seems to be left for others to discuss- maybe it's best not to consider that right now but seems like a recipe for failure.

So I was really pleased to see the Agile Barcamp wiki set-up from the session here in Wellington two weeks ago. I was disappointed I couldn't make that session as I was in Auckland that day (story of my life!) - however I have had the benefit of seeing the presentations uploaded now and can contact the people who wrote them and ask them how to integrate Agile and Waterfall. Fabulous.

Ironically (or otherwise) I've noted that a couple of Dilbert cartoons have focussed on Agile recently.

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20071126.html

Being in the camp of the business owner, I personally like this one.

I found this here http://cns2.uni.edu/~wallingf/teaching/agile/resources/dilbert-xp/