[ebxml-mktg] Gartner (was) Fwd: elevator pitches (was) gorillas,beaches, etc.

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>]

Forwarding to ebxml-mktg, where this may be a very useful
datum.   JBC

From: "Jean-Luc Champion" <jean_luc_champion@yahoo.com>
To: "Bill Morgan" <bmorgan@bTrade.com>,
        "James Bryce Clark" <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>, <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>,
        <rv@vrtprj.com>, <Scott.Beach@goodrich.com>,
        "Ralph Berwanger" <rberwanger@bTrade.com>
Cc: <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>, <ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org>,
        <arijit.sengupta@oracle.com>
Subject: RE: elevator pitches (was) gorillas, beaches, etc.
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 23:43:04 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal

Hi All,
 
Sometime there are strange coincidences.  Today in Brussels at the European Center of Normalisation (CEN/ISSS) plenary session, we've had a presentation given by C. Abrams, from Gartner too.
 
Surprisingly, we've had the same feeling about how Gartner is "promoting" ebXML.
 
Are we facing a global worldwide attack against ebXML ? (another Star War Episode xxx !)  Is Gartner taking the role of "XML-God" writing an "XML-Bible" imposing how to do business in 2007 ?
 
Sorry but I would prefer to have those people coming back on earth, participating in the working group and helping us to grab a piece of the cake they are telling us all vendors would have ...
 
Jean-Luc Champion
EDI & B2B Standards Senior Consultant
 
+32 496 12 99 13
Jean-Luc@Champion,Name
 
 

-----Message d'origine-----

De : Bill Morgan [mailto:bmorgan@bTrade.com]

Envoyé : mercredi 19 juin 2002 8:00

À : James Bryce Clark; MCRAWFORD@lmi.org; rv@vrtprj.com; Scott.Beach@goodrich.com; Ralph Berwanger

Cc : ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org; arijit.sengupta@oracle.com

Objet : RE: elevator pitches (was) gorillas, beaches, etc.

All, Gartner (Wes Rishel & Jess Thompson) talked today at a Web Services conference in L.A. to a group of about 400 people and basically addressed ebXML as inadequate as unable to fulfill the "hype".  They did say that the ebXML Message Service Handler is the only secure way to collaborate (vs. SOAP), but the standard will not be broadly adopted because it will soon be replaced by a W3C standard.

 

From an "elevator pitch" perspective, it is critical that ebXML value propositions are clearly and consistently articulated to all of those who will evangelize the technology.

Unfortunately, Gartner appears to be both uninformed and uninterested in promoting ebXML right now.

 

Unlike other initiatives in the past, I would like to see meaningful business examples of ebXML in use to support each value proposition addressed in the elevator pitch.

(We should strive to promote what ebXML is currently doing, the provide clear guidance on what ebXML will do for business collaboration.)

 

Wes told me today that his problem with ebXML is that it failed to deliver on the hype after 18 months.  He left me with the impression that he has written the viability of ebXML off and is focused clearly on W3C where Microsoft and IBM can "get things done".

 

In my opinion, this type of Gartner social conditioning compounds the challenges of evangelizing ebXML through elevator pitches.

 

Bill Morgan

Executive Vice President,

Chief Solutions Officer

bTrade, inc.

www.bTrade.com

972.580.2950

 

 ----Original Message-----

From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@mmiec.com]

Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 2:45 PM

To: MCRAWFORD@lmi.org; rv@vrtprj.com; Scott.Beach@goodrich.com

Cc: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org; arijit.sengupta@oracle.com

Subject: elevator pitches (was) gorillas, beaches, etc.

    Mark is absolutely right that the value propositions in the 1.0 requirements document that Mike and his team wrote in 2001 are still the right ones.  See http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebREQ.pdf.

    However, I agree with Scott and Rainer that we (ebXML) have been too slow to offer simple, user-friendly explanations, and get the pitch out to the right audiences.  Some of that is undoubtedly due to the nonprofit and nonaligned nature of ebXML.  However, the great advance work that Mark and his colleagues have done for other standards proves that nonprofit efforts can conduct successful PR.  

    Those interested in pursing this further as to ebXML might join the relevant discussion list Apu Sengupta has launched, ebxml-mktg at http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl.

At 04:34 AM 6/17/02, CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:

Rainer and Scott,  If you are looking for the why of ebXML, I suggest you read the requirements document.

-----Original Message-----

From: Rainer Volz [mailto:rv@vrtprj.com]

*** I just wanted to support what Scott Beach wrote:

 -----Original Message-----

From: Beach, Scott [mailto:Scott.Beach@goodrich.com]

[...] ebXML simply lacks an "elevator speech" that is compelling to IT executives.  Web services doesn't suffer from this same marketing  paralysis.  Another case where better technologically doesn't correlate to more successful.

 

~ James Bryce Clark

~ VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan Inc.   www.mmiec.com

~ Chair, US ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce  

~ www.abanet.org/buslaw/cyber/ecommerce/ecommerce.html

~ 1 818 597 9475   jamie.clark@mmiec.com   jbc@lawyer.com

~ This message is neither legal advice nor a binding signature.  Ask me why.