By Maurizio Taffone, Business Development Manager, Cisco
There is no doubt that collaboration technologies -- from social networking to unified communications and video technologies – offer substantial business benefit and competitive advantage. These range from reduced travel and increased productivity to the ability to create sophisticated virtual enterprises that span continents.
At the same time, however, and as businesses adapt to take full advantage of these tools, security threats are evolving. Staying ahead is vital to ensure that business innovation and development is not jeopardized. With the proliferation of mobile devices and the growing options for work locations, no area can now afford to fall outside of the organization’s security policy. The key is to address all of this without detracting from the business’s agility.
I’m an unabashed Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) believer. I spent the first 10 years of my career defining and building traditional enterprise software and the past 11+ years building SaaS solutions (the last 7 with WebEx (now Cisco)) and from where I sit the benefits of SaaS are undeniable. The reasons are pretty simple. We can build SaaS software faster, deploy it more quickly and operate it more reliably – all at lower cost than traditional enterprise software. So the logical conclusion is that “on-prem” is dead and everything is destined for the cloud – right? Actually no, premise-based infrastructure still has a major role to play in future deployments. Why? Equally simple reasons: physics, user experience and lawyers. Let me explain…
Proctor & Gamble (P&G) today is a ninety billion dollar company with about three billion people around the world that use their products. Increased collaboration with Cisco Unified Communications and TelePresence has helped P&G meet its sustainability goals.
Watch this video to see how Proctor and Gamble is becoming the world’s most collaborative company and how they’re fostering innovation using Cisco collaboration technologies.
Is it time to reconsider the notion of “rich versus reach” with respect to the way we hold extended events?
For years, technologists have described the tradeoff between high quality, sophisticated products and those that are available to a very broad audience with the “rich vs. reach continuum.” Central to this concept, of course, is the fact that a product could only offer a rich experience to a very select group of users (often, ultimately, due to cost considerations).