The collision between BYOD and enterprise

There is a conflict looming in the business world. A new meme is rising to challenge the concept of enterprise software.

That meme is "Bring Your Own Device" (BYOD).

First, a short discussion of enterprise software. What, exactly, is "enterprise software".

It can be hard to define enterprise software. What is it about a specific application that makes it an "enterprise" application? Is it simply the applications used in business (like Microsoft Word and Excel)? Is it the ability to integrate with Microsoft's Active Directory? Is it an expensive support contract?

Here's my definition: Enterprise software is selected by one person and used by another. In most (if not all) large organizations (business, non-profit, and government) someone, perhaps a committee of someones, selects the "standard software" used within the organization. The chosen software is then foisted upon the troops, who must use the specified software or face the wrath of the standards committee, senior managers, and the Human Resources department.

Companies have reasons to standardize software. The reasons are varied, yet generally devolve into one of these:

• Common data formats to exchange information
• The company can buy licenses at a discount
• Support teams can reduce costs by focusing on a limited set of software
• People can easily move from one project to another

These are all valid reasons of a company to standardize on software.

But look at what happens in the new world of "Bring Your Own Devices" (with the implication of bringing your own software):

• The employee is buying the license, not the company. No volume discounts!
• The employee supports himself (or herself). No support team needed!

The advantage of "Bring Your Own Device (and software)" to the company is that the cost of acquisition and maintenance shifts to the employee. Yes, companies will claim that they implement BYOD(S) to improve workforce morale, but really the accountants have looked at the numbers and blessed the decision based on the reduction of expenses.

Once a company implements BYOD(S), the justifications for standardized software become:

• Common data formats to exchange information
• People can easily move from one project to another

The former has some merit, but is weak. In the days of Wordstar, WordPerfect, and MS-Word (three word processors with very different data formats) the ability to exchange information across products was limited. Today's word processors (and spreadsheets, and even virtualization managers) have moved to common, open formats.

Which leaves the only reason to enforce standard software is to move people from one project to another. That argument is difficult, given that employees, assigned to any project, will own their devices and software. They still pick the software for their device!

So there you have it. The BYOD(S) movement, which forces people to purchase their own hardware and software, also moves us away from enterprise software.

* * * * *

Of course, the situation is not that simple. The logic works for my definition of enterprise software, which was simplistic. Enterprise software is selected by someone and used by another, but it is much more. Enterprise software is designed for collaboration among employees, with common data and often restrictions on visibility and operations upon that data, based on user identity.

The significant enterprise systems (ERP systems, calendaring, and the legacy accounting systems) will remain enterprise systems. Employees will use apps to access them, from tablets or smartphones or even PCs.

The other "enterprise systems", the desktop apps that standards committees often argue about, will, on the other hand, evaporate into the realm of employee-owned devices. Word processors, spreadsheets, presentation software, and many other applications will cease to be a worry of the standards committees. Instead, the standards committees will worry about data formats and storage locations.

Adapt or die

Nothing says "we're a big company" like the sentence "Only resumes in WORD format will be accepted". The use of passive voice is strongly correlated to bureaucracy, as is the imperious capital letters for a (perhaps not-so-humble) product.

Demanding a single format is also arrogant. First, it says that you have a certain way of doing business, and that you are unwilling to change. Second, it says that you expect everyone else to conform to your way, regardless of their procedures or technology.

I suspect that many of these companies are using this approach from inertia. In the past, when Windows and Microsoft Office dominated the market, one could reasonably expect everyone else to use the same tools.

Times have changed. Microsoft Office is still popular, and common in corporations. Especially so for large corporations. But it is not universal. People and companies (especially start-ups) use other software and other formats. Local, desktop software now includes Open Office and Office Libre. Apple iWork is available. Google Docs (now named 'Google Drive') lets you compose and edit documents, spreadsheets, and presentations. Other formats include HTML, XML, and TeX.

Demanding a single format is so 1990.


Interestingly, firms that recruit for tech positions are some of the worst offenders. While I have seen none that ask for a facsimile, most ask for resumes in Microsoft Word format - and only that format. A small percentage deign to accept PDF.

This limitation strikes me as, well, limiting. Why accept only the one format?

I can think of two reasons.

First, a single format simplifies archiving. People can point to older word processor formats (Wordstar, Wordperfect) and claim that documents in these formats are no longer readable. They are right -- those formats are unreadable by modern-day word processors.

But the next version of Microsoft Word will (most likely) drop support for the old ".doc" format. When that happens, all of their old (non .docx) Word files will be unreadable, too.

The second reason for using a single format is for simpler internal procedures. If everyone in an organization uses the same format, then the organization can standardize on a single word processor, which reduces outlays for software and time for training.

But the extension of this internal standard to external communications seems unwise. It makes other jump through your hoops, which is at best discourteous. It may irritate your customers or candidates, or worse, drive them away. Do you want to lose business over a file format?

Tech recruiters look especially bad when they do this. It changes their image from "with it" to "stodgy" and "technically capable" to "technically limited". Demanding an old format (such as the soon-to-be-dropped ".doc" format) makes on look behind the times.

If I were a technical recruiting or staffing company, I would want the best candidates for the jobs available, not just those candidates that can jump through arbitrary hoops. (Although that may be exactly what some client companies desire.) I would want to demonstrate flexibility and adaptability to candidates and clients.

Think about your internal standards and your external interactions. Do you adapt to the world, or do you expect the world to adapt to you?