In short, the discussions centered on issues that define how individuals can take better control of their personal information (with or without the help of “3rd Parties”) to promote more efficient ways to carry out Conversational Commerce. Vendor Relationship Management (VRM) was also at the core of discussion, both at the C3 Salon and at IIW, making it clear that the time has come for VRM to move from high concept to more mundane issues around the business considerations that underlie personal data storage, user authentication, privacy protection and tools that, at base, foster trust among individuals and companies who want to carry out business (or conversations) between one another.

Five years after the launch of ProjectVRM at Harvard Law’s Berkman Center, “Vendor Relationship Management” is a topic area that invites more detailed definition. I believe we have successfully positioned it as a complement to existing CRM (Customer Relationship Management) systems which trace their lineage back to the efforts of Tom Siebel (and a few others) in the mid-1990s. Enterprises around the world will spend well in excess of $14 billion this year on systems that capture, aggregate, analyze, interpret and respond to data generated (or emitted) by individuals as they cruise the web, use their wireless phones, make purchases or otherwise carry out everyday activities. Today, that investment gravitates toward technologies that monitor data streams to detect intent and support other business objectives, including new sales, customer loyalty, upsells and cross-sells.

As I noted in this post, any “CRM versus VRM” discussion is off-base. There is no “either/or” proposition. Both individuals and marketers benefit from a “both/and” construct whereby individuals (as browsers, shoppers, radio listeners, customers or whatever other context he or she may bring) opt into a system or use a 3rd party (or 4th party) service that enables them to control and share the terms and conditions under which they are willing to make their personal data available either to other people or to businesses.

This year’s IIW was particularly timely because it provided forums where attendees from start ups, standards bodies, technology providers, government agencies, communications carriers and large enterprises could discuss and define the software, services and schema that will make it easier for individuals to assert their identities and take control of their personal data as required to carry out activities, both online and off. In the past, IIW was a colossally “insider” gathering for the firms giving shape to initiatives underlying “single sign-on” to multiple Web services, “3rd party authentication” (like OAuth), Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and, rightfully, Identity Management. This year IIW attracted a larger and broader spectrum of companies, embracing communications carriers, “Big Data” (in general) and e-commerce. Thus, Ping Identity, Singly, Connect.me and other startups could rub elbows with the likes of Microsoft, Oracle, PayPal (eBay), Adobe, Intel, Orange (France Telecom), SVOX, Ericcson, AT&T, Telus and IBM.

IIW culminated with IIW+Yukon” Day, designed to invoke the dual image of a gold rush into a wild frontier of opportunities. Organizers described it as follows: “One purpose of Yukon is to start to focus on business models and value propositions, so we will specifically be reaching out to angels and VC’s who are interested in personal data economy plays and inviting them to attend.” They were successful in attracting investment candidates like Singly.com (closely affiliated with LockerProject), Azigo (an online electronic wallet), Connect.me (whose founders are promoting a “Trust Fabric” for sharing and protecting personal information), ChaChanga (operator of a “personal broadcasting” platform) and a few others.

What struck me throughout IIW, IIW+Yukon and the Opus Resarch C3 Salon was that “achieving business objectives” is the most common denominator for all three initiatives. Individuals, both knowingly and unknowingly, are the source or a tremendous amount of personal data. There is a move afoot among businesses to convert that data into “intelligence” – by capturing as much as possible and putting it through analytic resources that derive meaning, impute “intent” and (with hope) build loyalty or, at least, stronger engagement. CRM and analytics software providers have already built a business around managing “customer data.” They are joined by third parties like credit bureaus, “social media,” and aggregators like RapLeaf, Intelius Manta and others. If you can understand the business underlying the service bureaus operating on behalf of mortgage bankers, retailers, credit card issuers and car dealerships, you can understand the need (and the business objectives) that can be served by a 3rd party (or 4th party) that caters to a few simple requirements of “savvy” individuals (in their roles as shopper, search engine user, mobile subscriber or social media participant.

Individuals want to define the terms and conditions under which they are willing to share their personal data. When and if they upload information, photos or their location to an online resource (be it a social site like Facebook or Foursquare or just their supposedly neutral mobile phone carrier) they want assurances that the info won’t be shared without permission. As they go through everyday activities, they are destined to shift from “persona A” (private citizen in car) to “persona B” (employee in cubicle) to “persona C” (person shopping for a new bike). The third party that can make selected personal data available as needed in the real-time context of an interaction, will greatly benefit from participating in the Personal Data Ecosystem.

The CRM architecture insures that multiple copies of personal data reside in multiple repositories around the world (and out of the control of individuals). VRM defines roles, responsibilities and (ultimately) revenues for third parties to provide a safe, trusted repository for the information and data that can support a transaction. We don’t know for sure who the third party will be or what the exact nature of the information is, but we do know that it is not designed to replace CRM (which has over fifteen years of development and deployment behind it).

We have to acknowledge that the development and maturity of these information systems will, in no way, obviate the need for person-to-person interaction (aka conversations). What Opus Research is following with great interest is how the tectonic shift taking place between enterprise-centric CRM and individual-centric VRM impact the contact center, especially help desk and support lines where customer service agents have gone far beyond their traditional role of supporting triage and escalation, if necessary.

VRM is destined to enhance the value of existing investment in both CRM systems and contact center infrastructure. At the same time, savvy enterprise IT and communications infrastructure providers have started to define a path beyond the confines of the corporate firewall. The growing popularity of Facebook, Skype, Twitter, Google Apps, LinkedIn and Twitter are seeping into and (in some cases) supplanting company-sanctioned collaboration platforms – like Microsoft’s Lync, IBM Sametime and Cisco Quad.

Ceding more control to end users is no longer optional and, when it comes to “customer collaboration” – VRM is destined to provide the guiding principles. That’s why it is so important for the teams who link IT investment to business objectives to recognize right now that there is a tremendous upside to understanding (and embracing) the emerging Personal Data Ecosystem (PDE), as a step beyond the emerging disciplines surrounding “Identity Intelligence,” which a lead strategist at Oracle, Nishant Kaushik, described as “identity management, data mining, business processing and analytics” coming together “to address enterprise needs for greater transparency, compliance, risk management and business decision support.”

If VRM is added to the equation, those corporate goals can be achieved in concert with each customer or prospect’s needs for greater transparency, collaboration, risk management and decision support. They are not totally congruent, but you get the idea.

Featured Research Reports are available to registered users only.

For more information on becoming an Opus Research client, please contact Pete Headrick (pheadrick@opusresearch.net).

Click Here to View the Report Summary

As Sean sees it few, if any, companies companies are unaware of social media. Research that we’re conducting here at opus confirms that. Yet just as few have moved beyond Experimentation, largely because there are genuine cultural and technical challenges to putting plans into effect, integrating internal resources and ultimately fully engaging with customers. As he put it, “Believe me, your customers don’t want to ‘friend’ you, they want to get something done.”

Sean was followed by Barry Paperno, who launched and now nurtures the community of people using MyFICO (the community tool of the company that maintains your FICO credit score). Barry was able to describe some of the cultural and operational barriers that he encountered while fostering his community in what he termed “a very conservative company.”

My take-away, which is a theme Opus Research will be analyzing more thoroughly in the coming months, is the challenge of dealing with a natural tension between “Marketing” and “Support” as companies define their transformation to an engagement model. We see profound opportunity to leverage existing self-service and agent assisted services infrastructure by defining work flows that transcend the lines of demarcation between Web sites, IVRs, live agents, mobile networks and even face-to-face, in store conversations.

The point that Lithium and its guest speakers exposed is that every company that, thanks to high-profile implementers like Zappos or highly-successful low-profile community developments by the likes of FICO, the pendulum of power is swinging toward the customer. It’s going to take years, but the path to useful engagement models is becoming better beaten and both technical and cultural challenges are better defined.

Cisco is demonstrating an application that starts with monitoring Twitter feeds, incorporates intercompany collaboration, and video of course. We also get a hint of an approach to “customer collaboration” whereby a company or “brand” can do more of the heavy lifting on behalf of their customers. It’s not the total inversion or empowerment of customers that a “Vendor Relationship Management” approach will take, but it is an example of the sort of “Social CRM” approach that will bridge the gap from poor user experience to a more satisfactory outcome for customers.

Call Distributor provides Web-based control of agent availability, call management and IVR applications. The businesses can supply their own prompts and establish rules for queue management and call routing. As a basic feature, callers can “opt out” of a queue and be routed to an IVR message or voicemail system to leave a message. Each agent’s dashboard will display the results of a reverse look up of the originating number and can also incorporate information from Salesforce.com. The management dashboard displays key performance statistics and rudimentary analytics.

Competition for cloud-based customer care is heating up. But, as Angel.com and a few others have learned, SMBs are an elusive market. The “no CapEx” and pay-as-you-go approach tends to play well, but it is always coupled with an inherent need for initial hand-holding and ongoing support. Direct competition comes today from Jaduka and eventually from the likes of Google Voice.

IfByPhone is no newcomer to this market space and has already offered such services as virtual phone numbers with advanced routing, Hosted IVR, Voice Broadcasting, Call Tracking, Find Me, Click-to-Call, Google Analytics® Integration. We’re pleased to see them packaging a virtual contact center product for SMBs and note that they are doing so without invoking the “Unified Communications” mantra.