Hybrid or Native Mobile App Development: Six Key Considerations:

There has been an ongoing fierce debate, with legitimate pros and cons on either side, as to whether mobile app developers should go native or use a hybrid approach that can accommodate the many different mobile platforms they want to target. Analyst and consulting firm Gartner predicts that more than 50 percent of mobile apps deployed by 2016 will be hybrid. There are several factors to consider when deciding a native vs. hybrid approach, but the most important are related to time to market and development costs. 

Considerations key to ROI 

A native app is specifically designed to run optimally on a device’s operating system. The hybrid approach combines the portability of the emerging standard HTML5 Web apps with a native container that facilitates access to native device features and thus supports multiple mobile devices. 

Based on our experience, the following six considerations are key factors in achieving the anticipated return on investment from developing a mobile app. 

Development speed and cost 

Hybrid apps are faster to develop. Only a portion of native code has to be re-written for different kinds of devices. The vast majority of development goes into the Web component, which is used across all devices, reducing the time it takes to build the app (and thus the development cost). These are Web apps built into a native mobile container or framework. 

This essentially means that they take advantage of the cross-compatibility of Web technologies such as HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript and use the native component to leverage device-specific features such as hardware sensors or the camera. 

Building a hybrid mobile application requires maintaining a single code base for the different platforms. Native apps require specific developments for each platform, which increases costs and duration. 

Required knowledge 

Because hybrid apps are based on Web technologies it is easier to find developers to build them and maintain them.  Globally, it is difficult in today’s heated mobile app development market to find developers experienced with iOS and Android. Due to the Web’s historical reality, the great majority of developers come with strong knowledge of Web technologies.  That history also is true for other mobile platforms like BlackBerry and Windows 8.  

Hybrid apps are a good choice for certain types of requirements. Productivity apps are the most common applications built using HTML5 (54 percent), followed by utility (38 percent). 

However, HTML5 alone is not a silver bullet.  There are other considerations besides development speed and cost that are usually not part of the decision process when choosing the technology to develop mobile apps with.  They include user experience, data persistence, immature tooling and cross-platform support. 

User experience 

Hybrid apps are not executed natively; the HTML5 and JavaScript portion of the app is rendered and executed by the platform’s Web engine, which adds another layer between the user and the app.  This can make things slower to the point where users can, irritatingly, perceive the slowness. 

Another drawback is when there is a need for animations or special user interface (UI) treatments, like spinners or custom UIs that require elements to move around the screen. HTML5 is lacking in this area. In fact, this is one of the reasons LinkedIn dropped HTML5 and went native for its mobile app. 

The look and feel of the platform is also a factor. One of the benefits of hybrid apps is that developers only have to build once; this is also true for the UI, meaning that the app will look the same across all platforms. Some users expect the apps to look like the other apps they already have. There are some common elements and guidelines that are expected from an app on a specific platform, which cannot be met by hybrid apps. 

Data persistence 

Data storage plays an important role with mobile apps. It is used to store user preferences and app data that will enable offline use of the application. Hybrid apps use HTML5 storage mechanisms, which are usually restricted to a few megabytes depending on the platform support and implementation of the HTML5 standard. Data-intensive mobile apps are not suitable for a hybrid approach, as there can be significant investment in the effort to make it work successfully. 

Immature tooling 

The tools to develop hybrid apps are not mature enough to allow developers to fine-tune their code or even help them solve problems that may affect final end users.  Tools such as debuggers, memory profilers, and code analysis are still immature for HTML5 and JavaScript in the mobile environment.  

Cross-platform support 

The majority of a hybrid app is built using Web technologies.  However, native code is used to allow the app to access the wider functionality of the device and produce a more refined user experience.  If the app requires specialized functionality commonly found in today’s popular apps (such as push notifications where a portion of the code needs to be developed in native code), or when accessing phone contacts, JavaScript needs to check for the platform it is running on.   

Although this forces developers to maintain different code bases for the native portions, it is not that bad if compared to the extensive development effort required to maintain a completely different code base per platform.  Where it gets ugly is when the HTML5, CSS or JavaScript implementation on the platform behaves differently between platforms. This is the case for functionality related to local storage for data persistence, or even CSS rules for styling. 

As far as user interfaces are concerned, most people very likely won’t notice a huge difference from a native app, particularly if there isn’t a significant interactive component in the app. 

The debate likely will continue regarding the superiority of native mobile app development over a hybrid approach while the staggering growth of mobile app development and deployment continues in parallel. Apple’s app store boasts over 900,000 apps; Android plays catch-up at 750,000.  How will the continued release of apps on both platforms affect the native vs. hybrid debate? And, will the relatively small number of Windows Phone apps (less than 150,000) factor in? Time will tell. 

Co-published with Erick Vargas, a software architect with 10+ years of experience in software development including leading mobile hybrid development efforts and assessments.

Agile Reinvents Retail

On July 14, 2012, Oddyssea, a first-of-its-kind retailer, opened in Half Moon Bay, Calif. Equal parts science, nature, games, magic and furnishings, with a generous dash of whimsy, Oddyssea thematically is dedicated to exploring, creating and discovering. What’s most interesting about the Oddyssea retail experience is it was conceptualized, designed, implemented and continues to operate using Agile. The Agile software engineering model. But Agile is unrelated to the store’s point of sale, inventory management or financial systems. Rather, it’s completely focused on defining the retail experience.

Early on, while thinking about his next startup, Oddyssea’s founder, Mike Harding, who is a veteran technologist with product leadership stints at Juniper Networks and Sun Microsystems, hit upon the idea of integrating Agile and retail. It was a combination that would directly influence both what Oddyssea offered and what the store was.

Since its public release in 2001 through the seminal “Agile Manifesto,” the Agile software development methodology has become the successor to traditional methods for software development such as Waterfall. Leaning on iterative and incremental development practiced by small, self-organizing teams, Agile has become the de facto standard within both early-stage and mature software companies and is rapidly finding a foothold within industry.

A 2010 report by the global research and advisory firm Forrester Research showed that Agile was firmly in the mainstream. Fully 35 percent of the software developers surveyed said that one form of Agile or another best represented the way they create applications. That is a far greater proportion than any other method, including Waterfall.

From first-hand experience, Mike knew the Agile methodology emphasized individuals and interactions over processes and tools, working software over comprehensive documentation, collaboration over contracts and the flexibility to change versus following a rigid plan. His idea was to use the best elements of Agile to build a retail operation that was flexible and open to customers, collaborative with his target market and, most importantly, change ready.

Oddyssea would not be defined solely by what Mike and his wife Ellen thought would attract and sell, but also by what the market, their customers, told them was worth buying or engaging with. It would be “continuous Agile” supporting the product development life cycle. Only in this case the product was Oddyssea. Here’s how they did it.

Conceptualization
They started by enumerating the retail businesses they admire, enjoy and routinely visit. They observed what made each of the businesses compelling to them personally and then made an educated guess about what to incorporate in their initial approach.

In addition, they collected images from all over (not just retail), which represented the right look and feel they wanted to achieve. Or, in other words, the right UI (user interface). Finally, they wrote a brief narrative that combined these elements to establish their “True North” as they progressed.

Design
The design process started with the agreed-upon narrative and progressed to the image-based storyboard. It reminded Mike, the former Juniper and Sun leader, more of the build-out of a Web commerce platform than the launch of a store. The founders then started looking for the right physical space in which to test their concepts. They quickly found the right location in the historical Northern California tourist and day-trippers coast-side destination of Half Moon Bay. Much of the store design happened in real-time through multiple iterations.

Development
The development process, from the selection of fixtures to the selection of a wide variety of unique, often unrelated products to pricing and important back-end processes, was completely organic. The couple evaluated choices against their True North to determine consistency and continued to iterate until they found the right approach.

Test
Like Agile software development, testing is simply embedded in everything the Oddyssea proprietors do. Each day is a trade show of working and testing the retail experience. The store and its products and services are all tweaked continually. These may be small changes (such as how a product is displayed or priced) or very substantial changes (such as the reconfiguration of a large product area). On a weekly basis, they review the success or failure of those tweaks and then they iterate again.
Most of the people involved with the store have no concept of Agile. They are artists and retail specialists. But they see how Agile enables the founders to stay fresh and stay aligned with customers by teasing out unarticulated needs through observing behavior and testing.

The adaptive process leads to success in innovation
Oddyssea offers an interactive retail experience that the founders hope will engage visitors of all ages — including certain adults who have retained a child-like wonderment. They hope the experience will shake up the retail industry.

Every day brings something new to the store for visitors to engage and interact with. New, hands-on projects designed to engage the mind are periodically introduced. In the future, Oddyssea plans to offer expert guidance-led education sessions for visitors to acquire a new skill or hone an existing skill while having fun along the way.

While Oddyssea has only been open a few weeks, the best early indicator of success is the return visit. Not only are visitors returning, but they also bring friends and family when they come back. The increasing frequency of these “boomerangs” as the proprietors refer to them, is not only one of the best early indicators of success, it is tangible evidence that Mike and Ellen are steadily improving Oddyssea while remaining true to their vision.

While the 2001 release of the Agile Manifesto marked a positive turning point for global software engineering, its authors likely never imagined where it might lead. The ultimate “adaptive” method, Agile greatly improved on the legacy “predictive” process. Agile allowed software engineering teams to adapt quickly to changing realities. Predictive teams, on the other hand, have difficulty changing direction. In the world of retail — where this year’s must-have children’s accessory, Silly Bandz, sold in 18,000 stores nationwide with 250,000 followers on its Facebook page alone, but may be next year’s unwanted Cabbage Patch Kid — it pays to be adaptive.

Community Based Marketing in Technology Services

An Early Pioneer:

Sponsored (as opposed to Organic) Community Based Marketing in the technology services industry has a rich history. I saw it first hand in the ‘90’s at the game changing technology consulting and services company Cambridge Technology Partners, where I led field marketing in North America and Central Europe. Cambridge, or CTP - later acquired by Novell - certainly utilized traditional marketing communications tools such as advertising, promotion and PR. However, it was the company’s innovative use of Community Based Marketing  that stood out.  A pioneer, the company used it creatively to support its brand expansion, demand generation and customer "stickiness" goals.

CTP's program combined somewhat traditional community building tools with an innovative online platform to achieve its goals.  The Cambridge Information Network (CIN) was a free Web-based service that provided CIO’s and other senior technology executives with an interactive forum to discuss business and technology issues. Participants included technology executives from Federal Express, Microsoft, Cisco and other leading corporations. CIN, essentially an early social networking platform for like-minded senior technology managers to meet and interact, gave CTP exposure to potential customers while increasing loyalty (stickiness) from existing customers. By 1996, over 100 IT executives that mattered were registered on the site. 

CIN didn't invent a community.  Instead it provided the means for an existing community - one that Cambridge Technology Partners was eager to influence and sell to - to more usefully come together online.  IT executives needed a place to interact that augmented the traditional physical world of conferences, user groups and associations.  A place where they could interact with peers that didn't require them to get in a car, fly in an airplane or stay overnight in a hotel.  A location they could access from their desks.  CIN provided them with a Web platform to do just that.

In parallel with CIN, Cambridge Technology Partners' CIO Forum program created a physical companion to the company’s effort to increase customer loyalty and influence potential new customers. The program involved educational partnerships set up between CTP and major universities such as UC Berkeley and Stanford that targeted IT executives; both from among its customers and potential customers. The CIO Forum format involved:

1. A multi-hour classroom setting at university facilities featuring subject matter experts from within CTP and without, presenting on topics important to IT executives,

2. A classroom setting that was highly interactive, supporting peer communication, a “safe” environment without overt selling by CTP or other vendor sponsors such as Oracle, Siebel Systems, Peoplesoft and Sun Microsystems,

3. Tie-in to an end of class cocktail hour and/or sponsored dinner that further promoted networking, community building and customer loyalty,

4. About those other sponsors: CTP invited important technology alliance partners of the day - Oracle, Siebel Systems, Peoplesoft and Sun Microsystems - to co-sponsor the event. The co-sponsorship benefits were substantial when measured in CIO Forum budget share; access to a larger pool of presenter SME’s; co-branding with industry, technology and education leaders; and lead generation (the partners invited their own customers and prospects to attend).

Neither CTP’s nor the partner's sales representatives were allowed to attend the classes, but were permitted, with limitations, to attend the end of day cocktail and dinner networking. There, in a tightly scripted manner they could meet with existing customers and key contacts at related prospects.  Program managers from CTP acted as "facilitators" -introducing customers and prospects to attending sales representatives at the after class networking event.  It was effective.

Cambridge Technology Partner’s Community Based Marketing program brought measurable benefits to the company’s sales and branding efforts by providing bi-directional communications with customers supporting increased feedback, better understanding of customer needs, and support for new service development and launch; reduced communications barriers supporting targeted message delivery to customers and prospects; increased advocacy through word of mouth; and trusted advisor status.

The program, particularly CIN, was an obvious forerunner to today’s wildly successful social networking leaders like Facebook and Linked-In. In fact, CIN was later sold for $8 million to the company EarthWeb.  Many Clean Technology start-ups are successfully employing Community Based Marketing tactics today, cleverly tapping into existing communities representative of their customers and prospects who are passionate about sustainability.  And, in so doing gaining the brand and sales benefits that result.

Web Conferencing: Your Way to Building a "Sticky" Community

All the buzz these days, as it should be, is around building virtual communities – or social networks – using innovative technologies that employ voice, video, text or even avatars. The success of these communities is undeniable, if measured only by the sheer size of some of the more well-known communities and by the money invested in them by other, larger corporations and venture firms.  Facebook for one, has over 500 million users.  Only China and India have larger populations.

While the marketing power of these communities to influence actions and drive behavior that support product and service sales is proven, there remains a solid, if unspectacular, technological augmentation in the form of web conferencing. Made commercially famous by the companies WebEx and PlaceWare*, web conferencing remains extremely popular today.

But then you already knew that. You've probably used web conferencing both internal and external to your company many times.  So, your response might be, “So what?”

The real community building magic occurs in a form of web conferencing called a webinar. Generally speaking, a webinar is a one-way communication form with limited audience interaction. The magic occurs both in the way the limited audience interaction is conducted and in the overall systematic outreach to one’s webinar community.

Let’s examine the first point, the so-called “limited audience interaction.” Most commercial web conferencing systems – and there are scores of them – offer an electronic Q&A whereby the audience can ask questions of the speaker online. Many presenters prefer this format because there is no audio to worry about, and they can manage the quality of the questions. Who wants to answer an audio question the attendees can hear (some of whom may be your clients) that is either a) not relevant to the topic of the webinar, b) too difficult to answer, or c) disingenuous because it comes from a competitor who sneaked onto the webinar? Nobody.

As such, the electronic question and answer format is often preferred. It also enables the presenter to selectively introduce questioners to one another during the webinar session so they can share tips on the webinar topic or share tips with all attendees online. The result: a managed community, one that gains topic insight value both from the presenter and other webinar attendees.

The second point, outreach, is very compelling. If you can deliver a systematic webinar experience, one that combines a regular calendar expectation; relevant topics presented compellingly by knowledgeable and capable presenters; online forum parameters that deviate little; and pre- and post-webinar communication that is not intrusive, then you’ve captured the magic. Furthermore, that magic translates into an ongoing interest from people to whom you’d like to sell (or influencers of those to whom you’d like to sell) to return again and again to your webinars. A sticky community is born using an old, standard tool.

Sounds simple, doesn’t it? Well, then why do so many companies execute their webinar programs poorly - losing all hope of building a relevant community? One that purchases your product or service and communicates your value to others in their own community?  We will talk more about this topic on a future post.

* WebEx was founded in 1995 and was acquired twelve years later by Cisco for $3.2 billion. PlaceWare is a spin-off from the famed Xerox PARC and was acquired five years later by Microsoft and re-christened Microsoft Office Live Meeting,

2010 Cleantech Investment Update

Global Clean Technology venture investment increased 65% during the first half of 2010.  Over 2 billion dollars (USD) were invested in 140 Cleantech companies in North America, Europe, China and India during Q2 2010 alone.  This amount was similar to the previous quarter and was up 43% from the same period 12 months previous.  The number of Q2 deals were down from the record high of 192 in Q1 2010, but still represented a strong quarter historically.  The primary benefactors of the investment were solar related companies, and a high volume of follow-on rounds across both solar and other technologies.  These results were somewhat tempered by the IPO withdrawls of Solyndra and Goldwind, among others.  There is no doubt that the Cleantech IPO market remains unpredictable, including counting for Tesla's against type good news.

Another trend is the increase in corporate activity around Cleantech innovation, which helps play an important role in maintaining the levels of investment activity. Corporations are becoming key participants in many of the largest venture and growth capital investment rounds. Strong corporate involvement was evident again in the quarter’s top ten deals: Intel Capital, GE Capital, Shell, Votorantim (Brazilian conglomerate), Alstom (French power and rail infrastructure company) and Cargill Ventures all contributed.  Their activity levels are a key indicator of the health and growth of the broader market for Cleantech products.

Corporate indicators of operational Cleantech involvement include major U.S. utilities increasing direct investments in wind and solar due to improving cost scenarios, favorable tax credits and incentives, and evolving pressure to meet Renewable Portfolio Standards. As well, large global companies are seeing the business case for operational Cleantech integration, leading to record corporate investment. These companies are looking to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions in order to reduce operational costs, mitigate energy price volatility risk, drive sustainable growth, and comply with existing and pending regulations around carbon and climate change risk disclosure.

Venture Investment by Technology Sector:

The leading sector in the quarter by amount invested was solar ($811 million), followed by biofuels ($302 million) and smart grid ($256 million). Energy efficiency was the most popular sector measured by number of deals, with 31 funding rounds, ahead of solar (26 deals) and biofuels (13 deals).

Venture Investment by World Region:

North America accounted for 72% of the total, while Europe and Israel accounted for 24%, India 3%, and China 2%.

So, what does it all mean?  One conclusion is that the many SaaS/On-demand based carbon emmission managmenet start-ups like Hara and Carbonetworks (now ENXSuite) are in position to help large global corporations manage greenhouse gas emissions as well as energy, water, and waste.  Corporations will continue to actively look for innovative energy and resource management tools. 

Another conclusion is to use the data to avoid jumping on the China Is Leading The Innovation Way bandwagon.  While China is certainly moving into the Cleantech product creation business - and that move will only grow - the numbers tell the tale: 72% Cleantech venture investment in North America, 2% in China.

Source: Cleantech Group LLC

Crowdsourcing Innovation? Why Not!

Why is it that many great business ideas remain un-utilized? 

One reason is that company managers rarely ask people to come up with great ideas. Instead, companies, and the people that manage them, share a tendency to keep problems to themselves.  Many great ideas never see the light of day simply because organizations don’t ask for help from the very people that are often best able to offer help: their own employees.

While not new, there is a growing effort by companies to use processes and tools that harvest the smart ideas lying dormant among their own employees.  Some call this Intra-organizational Innovation Crowdsourcing.  Or, crowdsourcing within the company that taps into its employees to uncover the smart ideas. 

Crowdsourcing itself, described as the act of outsourcing tasks to a large group of people or community through an open call is well documented. Its uses include tapping the wisdom of the crowd for new technology development, design, or the capture and analysis of large amounts of data.  It is typically enabled through the use of Web 2.0 technologies.

Intra-organizational Innovation Crowdsourcing, or IIC, focuses on encouraging the participation of a company's employees toward contributing great ideas that normally would have remained uncovered.  How are companies using IIC?  Here are just a few examples:

• A California-based solar company runs multiple employee contests annually, each with a $500 prize, for smart ideas. Employees are also rated, and compensated, on innovation in their annual reviews
• A research company involves its employees in a contest titled 100 Days of Innovation; employees are urged to come up with a total of 100 innovative ideas by year's end in order to each receive a monetary reward
• A software company holds a new product naming contest open to all of its employees across all functions, not simply marketing or sales, with the best three submissions winning a monetary reward and the knowledge company-wide that the company's product name originated from employee X
• Daimler’s Open Innovation Network allows the manufacturer of Mercedes-Benz to creatively engage with its own employees to harvest creative ideas that lead to new products, services or technologies

And, what of government?  Yes, even historically un-creative government organizations are getting into the act:

• The U.S. Veterans Administration (VA) introduced its flagship VA Innovation Initiative to create an ongoing competition among its employees for the submission of smart ideas.  Examples of VA employee innovation include 45,000 employees submitting 6,500 ideas to improve health IT systems; and 7,000 employees submitting 3,000 ideas on how to improve benefit claims processing

Intra-organizational Innovation Crowdsourcing's time has come.

Is Water the New Oil?

Is water the new oil?  Maybe... a strong maybe.  There is a growing belief by many that water is fast becoming the kind of precious commodity that oil became in the 20th century.  Consider these statistics:

• People can live as much as 30 days without food but only seven without water
• A billion people lack access to clean water
• 2.5 billion people are without water for sanitation
• 80% of all disease is borne by dirty water

Ironically, when seen from space, earth appears literally as a blue planet, covered by water.  However, the vast majority of that blue is salty or dirty.  Humans need fresh and clean water.

So, is clean water decreasing?  The answer according to environmentalists, is YES.  The cause, not surprisingly, is the intersection of a growing human population and a warming world.

According to Jonathan Greenblatt, a professor at UCLA who advised the Obama administration: "As climate change accelerates and we see a changing hydrological cycle, diminishing access to resources, there are direct human impacts that are water-related."

There is a real danger that if sea levels rise dramatically due to global warming as scientists predict, coastal regions may see increased salination of aquifers -- natural underground reservoirs -- which will further affect access to fresh water.  In addition, in some areas such as central China, global warming is causing rapid desertification directly outside Beijing, with desert-like conditions coming to areas that were once fertile.  The result is further stress on fresh, clean and available water.

And, what of the economic relationship between an investment in clear water projects and its return to government and business?  Consider:

• The World Health Organization reports that:
• every $1 spent on water and sanitation can bring economic benefits ranging from $7 - $12
• healthcare agencies could save $7 billion a year
• employers could gain 320 million productive days a year for workers in the 15-to-59 age range
• there could be an extra 272 million school attendance days annually
• an added 1.5 billion healthy days for children under the age of five 
• The Natural Resources Defense Council says that an investment of $11.3 billion a year could yield a payback of $83 billion a year in increased productivity and health

So, is water the new oil?  Perhaps the answer lies in considering these two questions: How long can a person live without oil?  How long can a person live without water?

 * Source: 2009 World Water Forum in Turkey