SAP has changed its management and the founder Hasso Blattner is back watching it all. As German’s number one newspaper FAZ commented:

Wenn ein Unternehmer Jahre nach der Unternehmensgründung wieder ins operative Geschäft eingreift, ist etwas schief gelaufen. (free translation: when an entrepreneur after the successful founding and developing of a company again enters operational activities something must have gone wrong.)

They also mention that Shai Agassi - who is now trying to overcome the limitations of car battery technology with country-wide battery replacement stations - would have been a Silicon Valley like entrepreneur. Now SAP picked a double heading the company. A Danish and American with long-time experience working for SAP have been selected to run SAP- as it appears - by Hasso Plattner who will oversee it all again.

I must admit that I never warmed up to SAP. When I had to pick a ERP solution while with Bertelsmann (BMG) in Asia I felt that Oracle would be a better solution that is less dependent on experts and as such offers a better deal. Of course the company’s IT department already purchased many licenses forcing them to “convince” the rest of the company to use SAP so that they could apply the already purchased licenses. While this model has worked extremely well for SAP it seems to also be its limitations and the now replaced Theo Apotheker was a guy from having excelled with that business model.

Europe would need successful IT companies since the future will be much more driven by such companies than by car manufacturers. But apart from SAP there is only one other good-sized company that is known on an international scale: Software AG. These guys I know even less but they seem to do quite well around the buzzword “XML”.

Back to SAP: In my opinion they need to be much more aggressive in innovation and also need to reach out to new areas. This could well be by acquiring promising technologies from startups. So far SAP has not applied acquisitions much but I think they should do much  more. Also I think SAP needs to expand into areas where Oracle and Microsoft are active. There is no reason why they should not be able to offer their own relational database or offer enterprise software office solutions. In what of the currently hotly debated IT subjects is SAP present? social private communities, mobile enterprise solutions, real-time communications, mobile advertisement, virtual software, cloud computing, unified communications. Hardly anywhere. This needs to change if they want to have a future.

.

Also read the Skype blog post.

Techcrunch Europe just brought out a top 100 Europe startup list. The ranking is done by some (secret) but - as they say - accurate algorithm that can not be gamed and is updated constantly. They partner with YouNoodle who says about its scoring:

YouNoodle Score is a quantitative measurement, on a scale of 0 to 100, of a startup’s progress and traction based on its traffic, funding, employees, buzz and other activity. The score is based on information pulled in from thousands of online sources: traffic sources, mainstream media, funding sources, the blogosphere, conversations on Twitter, and other key factors.

Personally I have a problem with such attempts to rank startups based on - as it seems - online buzz simply because it says practically nothing about how viable, close to a good exit etc. the startup is.

Any algorithm is highly subjective and open for BIG manipulation. I don’t want to suggest that Techcrunch or YouNoodle supportive startups are higher ranked than the ones who could care less about them but at the least questions remain and that should not be.

Therefore I call to either publish the algorithm and make it transparent or do no scoring at all. Better would be to rank the startups by simple metrics alone like funding, revenue (already tricky since this can be manipulated as well by private companies), number of employees. Or, what I would consider the best for a social media blog like Techcrunch, let the crowd do the ranking.

There are many voices out there that say that only a few mobile OSs would survive and among them Apple, Google (Android), RIM, and Microsoft (Windows Mobile). Nokia’s OSs are not mentioned. One of the major reasons brought up is that Nokia is not a SW company but a hardware manufacturer only. I am not sure though if that is correct. In particular if Nokia continue to make the right moves like this free SW GPS, and acquires SW companies, then they have their current market leadership behind them. Also, unlike both Google and Apple, Nokia have a very strong relationship with the mobile operators as their distribution partner. To change a working infrastructure is a tough thing to do and typically requires really big differentiation and benefits. Of course Apple is able to deliver them but also seems to be the only vendor out there with that capability. That would reduce the battle for Nokia to one company “only” which is Apple. And to do that they need to do more than provide SW. Nokia have known that for a while and that’s the reason why they launched their Ovi platform, offering free music downloads and now free GPS capability. Of course free is not a good business model for a CE vendor and that’s why they have to really integrate this all well so that they offer an alternative to the Apple platform (touch phones, iTunes store, music player, apps, ebook reader). Looking at their website that’s exactly what they are working on but you can also see their main deficiency: while maps are free, network download charges for synchronization are of course not, and depend on your operator and your mobile plan. Apple would have provided deals with the major operators offering a complete end-to-end user experience (and if it is only that you can conveniently buy/activate it through iTunes). So still some way to go for Nokia, but first steps look promising at least.

One additional question now is what will happen with GPS vendors when what they offer is essentially a freebee on mobile phones. Worth a new blog post I think…

I tried out this startup company’s service today and it worked very nicely. At first I was not sure what it might bring in addition to web presentation services such as GoToMeeting or Webex, but it soon became clear.

While GoToMeeting still has no smartphone app, which I consider as pretty weak, Webex has that too. MightyMeeting’s approach is to upload your presentations (the limit is 20 MBytes per presentation) and then run it from there. So it is the SaaS version of these two other web presentation tools.

What are the advantages of doing that? The biggest advantage I see is in being able to run an online presentation simply from your iPhone, iPod Touch, Android or other smartphone and not having to be at your laptop or PC. Of course you can run it from there, too. While it is also possible to run a presentation and advance the slides from your smartphone while your laptop is connected to an LCD beamer, I was not then able to select a full-screen view, which is not ideal of course as you always see the border of the program and the browser. The program is in beta so I hope they add full screen view as well in that operation. One can expect that they will add better usability and communication features such as VoIP (a basic chat function is already supported) over time too.

This tool is free right now. No idea how they plan to commercialize it. One approach could be to come out with an enterprise version that they charge for the same way the others do. MightyMeeting btw won the last event of Founders Showcase run by TheFunded in Silicon Valley where every 3 months about 200 entrepreneurs and VCs come together to listen to pitches from very early stage companies and then vote for the best one that evening.

How innovation is handled is of course quite different depending on which country you live in. To try out new things in China or India is so much more the norm than in industrialized countries like Germany, France, UK or - where we are based - Switzerland where long time existent processes demand to be followed and the need to do something new is not seen daily. There is probably only one place in the West where that might be different and that is Silicon Valley in California.

The success of any company largely depends on how much better they can bring new or improved things to the market. This is not a sole function of product management and R&D in product and service innovation though but actually of everybody in a company since there are so many touch points with employees, clients, partners, products, services etc. that can be improved and lead to competitive advantages.

In fact I am convinced that the future in about just any industry in light of the strong competition from Asia and here of course in particular China is how well one can motivate and leverage each employees know-how and skill towards a joint goal: innovating better and faster. Innovation has to be seen in a broader sense here encompassing all company functions but of course products and service innovation are key since they pay the bills.

But as it turns out in day-to-day business these improvements, ideas or innovations are difficult to collect and often even difficult to create in many in particular big companies. So how could one revive or jump start an internal process that leads to a culture where people love to come up with new ideas? Before being able to answer such a question I collected some of the reasons why it is difficult for so many companies to innovate, here are some:

• there is simply no time set aside for employees to collect ideas or even communicate them
• there are no or only hardly achievable incentives defined in case someone has a nice idea
• how decisions and new products/services are created is a non-transparent process and only clear to a few
• hierarchical barriers make it difficult for lower ranked employees or departments with less visibility to communicate ideas up, one might simply not listen to them
• innovation is in the hands of a few so called experts and not a grassroots motivated approach
• being wrong with an idea does not mean that was bad, in contrary it needs to be made clear that it is much better to be wrong many times trying than not proposing anything at all, unfortunately too many companies are still not encouraging to try out something new
• there are no software tools available on companies and made part of every employee’s work tool that foster an innovation culture

This is a very small list. A bigger (50) and more comprehensive, also with a positive angle, list you can find here: 50 WAYS TO FOSTER A SUSTAINABLE CULTURE OF INNOVATION.

With the launch of Google’s Nexus One mobile phone and a lot of blog posts trying to make sense of what they have seen (or actually not really have seen yet but just read about themselves) it is good timing that real statistics on the development of the mobile web came out as well. BTW, there were also two blog posts out there on the Nexus One that I found most knowledgeable and making the most sense: I, Cringely (as usual is right on it) and NYT (quite unusual actually ).

Read Quantcast’s statistics and you know more details about how the mobile web developed in 2009. There are a few spots in the world where cheap phones and with that NOKIA still dominates. Mostly it is all iPhone and iPod Touch dominated already.

It is the time again when you can read “smart” predictions for the coming year. One risks being wrong more than correct but “no risk, no fun”, I guess, so I am putting my thoughts into it too; so here are three quite safe bets:

• Apple enters the e-book reader game and might well kick e-books into the mainstream. I hinted about this quite some time ago but with the Apple tablet rumors getting quite concrete one target market seems the e-book and with that a new category, the multimedia e-book. To use e-ink readers with b&w only always seemed dull.

• social communications for the enterprise is a hot new subject. What Apple is for consumers, salesforce.com is (a little bit) for enterprise. Constantly trying to innovate, in salesforce.com’s case more re-coining the same buzzwords (SaaS, cloud). But with its latest announcement, to offer social collaboration capability starting some time in Q1 2010, this will get high visibility, and enterprise CIOs, productivity experts, online channel experts as well as marketing&communication departments will have something to talk about and do.

• the mobile Web will grow even more. With Apple’s iPhone the whole mobile phone industry dramatically changed. Suddenly the mobile Web was not only talked about but became a reality. Fast mobile data networks are becoming a necessity to be able to serve these power users. Blackberry e-mail push like services have worked with simple GPRS quite well for a long time already but mobile Web surfing not, and that requires fast mobile network infrastructure. Interesting to see that also here Apple is shaking up an industry that they have not served at all in the past. Nokia and all other mobile vendors will come under tremendous pressure and with Google entering with its own phone (selling it directly and via a few operators) this will only intensify. But most importantly with the growth of the mobile Web (eBay had record Christmas sales for mobiles) enterprises need to make their websites mobile ready and keep them up to date with new mobile browser developments as well.

Today I came across this Google banner ad for Google Apps on a ZDNet blog. The first time that I saw Google using such a relatively direct product marketing tool. I think this is a nice way to do it for them although there must be something wrong with its calculator (50 employees lead to $37k savings while 1000 to only $84k):

I was quite surprised when I saw this chart today as there are a few companies in this top ten list of biggest corporate R&D investors that I would not have expected. I expected Toyota there, the Swiss pharmaceutical companies Roche and Novartis but for sure not GM and Ford. Guess they kept it a secret what they all do with this huge amount of R&D money. Also surprising was Nokia being ranked second even. Also here the pure amount of the investments says nothing about its quality and success.