My colleague Nick Jones offered a potential algorithm for determining levels of creepiness, but what really makes things creepy? In his comment, he proposed surprise, uncertainty and intrusiveness, but is that all?

Everyone knows what makes them feel creepy, but what are the attributes that are more likely to make someone feel that way? Here are some I have thought of:

• Vulnerability: Actions involving people who are in some way vulnerable are much more likely to attract creepiness. Anything that deals with children, the elderly, victims of any kind or even just people in a lower position of authority are far more likely to tend towards the creepy side.
• Context: Where and how interactions happen can have a tremendous influence on how people perceive them. Teasing or jokey comments which would be appropriate on an informal discussion board could easily turn creepy if used in a more formal venue, like a performance evaluation or project appraisal.
• Tone: How something is said is more important than what is said. Tone can be wrong for the particular context (see above) or just plain wrong. The easiest example is vulgar, obscene or hate-filled language.
• Sneakiness:  No one likes it if they feel that something has been snuck past them, collecting information or making connections that they don’t expect or couldn’t anticipate. Most users of free social media sites have gotten used to ad targeting based on information provided on the site. But when different sites share their information or pool it, then it can feel unpleasantly intrusive.

  If someone emails a friend from Gmail about a holiday in Brussels, it would be no surprise to see an an advertisement for Belgian hotels on the Gmail home page. It would feel creepy if those ads started appearing on newspaper sites. It would be alarming if after joining a Facebook group about World War I history, ads or spam for tours of Belgian battle sites started appearing. That would feel creepy.

• Specificity: The more specific the information or actions come to me, the more likely I am to get creeped out. If the spam for WWI battle site tours seemed to know the dates of the planned holiday, that would be very unsettling.

Some of these overlap or are covered by Nick’s three-part criteria, but I felt they were worth elaborating on, I would be interested to hear about the attributes of what you find creepy. Please add thoughts and descriptions in the comments. I am not asking for individual incidents or anecdotes, but the common threads of what companies or software products have done to make you feel that they have crossed the line.

I know that at least half of the people I see tomorrow will want to talk about the Holland-Uruguay match, so I feel obliged to follow it at least a little bit. With no television in the house and a wonky broadband connection, my wife recommended the BBC Live Commentary. I also chanced across the New York Times feed, so decided to take a look at both.

Holland 1  – Uruguay 1
Both sites have similar setups, with a stream of updates coming from their reporters. The BBC also includes reader comments sent in by SMS and occasionally from Twitter (not very often though). BBC claims to update every 30 seconds, and NYT 15, but somehow the BBC seems to feel more current. The NYT site has more bells and whistles like a heat map areas of play and constantly updated statistics. The BBC shows some stats, but strangely shows Uruguay in orange, The Netherlands in green.

Holland 3  – Uruguay 1
One of the benefits of following a game this way is that the commentators’ howlers are more evident than when they are spoken. One minute before Oranje scores the second and 5 minutes before scoring their third, BBC Sports’s Chris Bevan has this to say:

“It’s just not happening for the Netherlands at the moment. … Maybe the Dutch have met their match?”

I guess not. This quick set of scores highlighted a nice feature on NYT: Vuvuzela blasts when someone scores. I could jump back from the emails I was working on to see what happened. While the BBC “feels” more up to date, NYT is the first to describe each goal.

Holland 3  – Uruguay 2
Maybe this still could get exciting.

Holland 3  – Uruguay 2
Not so much. The Netherlands in the final! Perhaps even playing arch rival Germany. Maybe this game is kind of cool. Now I have to find a television for Sunday, since I won’t be in Amsterdam.

Back then, companies were so desperate for talent that they thought up all sorts of clever tricks to bring potential employees through the door. Trips to Disneyland, interviews in a Hummer on an off-road terrain, raves sponsored by recruiters who would hang out in the chill rooms; I saw European companies trying all of these. In the last couple years, none of this was necessary. Getting and keeping a job was the highest perk many people would look for.

Apparently that’s not enough anymore. In a cartoon ad, Calco-IT promises to pick up a candidate from home to take a one hour test at a car dealer. Diplomas and qualifications aren’t necessary, but some experience with MSN and Internet would be good. Successful candidates can drive home in a new car, with an employment contract and commitment to receive a two month training course.

This is an encouraging sign for the IT industry and the people who work in it. I’m not so sure about what it says about the people being recruited for Calco-IT’s projects. The IT managers I talk with struggle with hard issues like how new technologies can change how we work, how to help employees cope with these possibilities, what are the long term effects of things like consumerization and social software. There is a need for people to keep the systems running and to do low end maintenance, but that is not what keeps managers awake at night.

The cartoon format works, but aiming specifically at dropouts attracted primarily by the idea of a new car will not draw the people ready to handle the hard questions. If the goal is to to be able to put hands on clients’ keyboards I guess this might be effective. I like what needing these tactics says about the IT industry and admire Calco-IT’s commitment to train and develop new employees. But I fear that today’s projects need more than just hands on keyboards.

  The issues attendees are dealing with are pretty similar to what I hear in the rest of the world, with a few Australian accents. Getting users to understand and use the facilities offered by social software remains a challenge, but the immense distances and isolation of many offices in Australia affects adoption.

I spoke with many government clients, and this was always a factor, both positive and negative. Distance makes usage of social software more urgent so that isolated users or constituents can participate fully in community activities, but also makes it more difficult to deploy, with face to face training often impossible, spotty bandwidth, and skepticism towards technology solutions.

The most intriguing thing about the visit was the coffee. I love drinking coffee in Australia, whether it is the supposed coffee capital in Melbourne or the cafes in Sydney. I watched carefully to try and discern the differences between a cappucino, a latte and the uniquely antipodean Flat White. The first one was clearly the most different, with lots of froth and a sprinkle of chocolate usually. Lattes and flat whites are pretty similar though. The former have a bit more milk and froth, but for many baristas the main difference seems to be that the milk for lattes is poured through the jug spout, and over the edge for a flat white. Either way, I had to limit myself to three in the morning to not get overly caffeined.

Not just because I have been working on it for months as the conference chair. Not just because I have some interesting presentations to deliver. Not just because I get to hear dozens of stories from clients about what they are doing with social software and collaboration. Not just because it doesn’t look like it will rain as much this year as it did last year. Not just because Cannes is kind of a pretty place. Not just because I get to take a cool TGV there instead of a plane. Not just for these reasons.

Also because there is some cool stuff happening on the ITxpo floor, like a live functioning telepresence suite and a Windows 7 upgrade lab. Also because there are cool topics my colleagues will be presenting like Pattern-based Strategy, and Applications Overhaul. 

Also because I get to see a lot of customers and colleagues I usually talk on the phone with. That is cool. I hope you are one of them.

I recently spoke separately with two vendors with newish offerings (Oracle with Beehive and Day Software with CQ5 Social Collaboration) who emphasize that rather than pulling together different products or evolving an existing offering, they started over and designed a new product on top of a solid repository. A clean technical architecture has not typically been a high priority from vendors in this space, who either leverage technology from a variety of sources, including open source, or have legacy products which they need to build upon. Rather than making a point of their long history or leveraging of proven technology from elsewhere, Oracle and Day emphasized the “clean sheet of paper” design approach.

I know that there are others out there who have done this, but these are two that I happened to have spoken with recently who had a similar message. This could be just a way to differentiate a late entry into an established market. In Oracle’s case, I expect they also want to distance Beehive from its failed predecessor, Oracle Collaboration Suite.

I believe it is more than just a stab at differentiation, however. Social software has grown beyond the gee-whiz phase where early adopters can be induced to buy by flashy functionality or anecdotes of somebody having done something fun, somewhere. Corporate buyers and IT architects are getting involved and looking for justification and supportable infrastructures.

in response, I expect to hear other suppliers emphasizing this type of advantage, if they can find a way to claim it. No doubt, some vendors will come up with a variety of “creative” ways of demonstrating architectural superiority as this becomes a more common customer evaluation criteria.

For some, building on a framework that has proven itself over 20 years of usage with millions of users will be their evidence of superiority. Others will wave their clean sheet of paper to show they were not tainted by old ideas. Both approaches have their merits in different situations; the good thing for users is that this discussion has started, because how one builds software matters.

Japanese companies are very interested in social software technologies, why companies are deploying them, and the benefits they expect to achieve. Comparatively few have active deployments, but the curiosity and level of interest is quite high. Many of the questions and concerns are predictably about security, governance, control and business benefits. In the consensus-driven culture of many Japanese companies, free-wheeling social software sites sound strange and chaotic.

Familiarity with social software concepts is quite high through consumer services. Facebook, Myspace and LinkedIn haven’t made much impact in Japan but mixi and many mobile phone-based communities have already become an important part of people’s lives.

Twitter, inevitably, also came up often.The whole concept seemed strange to many of the people I talk to, even more so than usual. When someone explained that it is common for Japanese to update their personal blogs dozens of times per day from their mobile phones, I began to see why the appeal of Twitter was so hard to grasp. Western Blogs are usually longer posts updated several times per week or month. Japanese mix the short and long form. They’ve been Twittering for years, so they don’t see the point of microblogging; it’s nothing new.

Some companies are doing interesting things, as a panel at the conference showed. Panelists from Ricoh, CSK Holdings and Tokyo Marine discussed how they are using blogs and wikis in several different ways to facilitate sharing among customers, employees and partners.

The level of interest and depth of questions gave me the impression that there is more activity than might be readily apparent. Several of the companies I spoke with were actively watching what other companies were doing and looking for cases where they could begin to use social software technologies internally. It reminds me of the image of a Harrier jump jet, which runs its engines for several minutes before taking off. In that pre-launch phase, it looks like nothing is happening, but inside it is building up power. When it does take off, it goes straight up, very fast. i suspect that Japanese adoption of social software will be similar, with a long period of preparation and then quick adoption once they finally start.

As well as hitting the visitor high spots like a karaoke bar and marveling at the controlled chaos of the Shibuya intersection, I got to try out some ideas I will be presenting at the PCC conference in Orlando, Florida June 8-10 (not much time at home this time of year). Just one of the reasons I appreciated being able to make this trip. I really want to thank the event organizers at Gartner Japan for giving me the chance, and the customers, vendors and journalists who gave me so much of their time and insights.

The first thought is that this is another step in Cisco’s bulking itself up with collaboration products to compete against Microsoft. After Microsoft made it plain that it was entering Cisco’s market when it announced OCS, Cisco acquired WebEx (web conferencing) and then Postpath (email server) and now Jabber (IM and presence). All of these acquisitions compete directly with products at the very heart of Microsoft’s Office Empire (Live Meeting, Exchange and OCS). SharePoint and the core Office desktop suite are the only major products unchallenged by Cisco. WebEx Weboffice contains some SharePoint-like functionality, but Cisco has not been pushing it aggressively and probably won’t, aside from in some SMB markets.

But while it is tempting to see this as two giants spoiling for a fight, I don’t think that Microsoft is Cisco’s main target, or at least not Microsoft’s current products. Many companies have tried to loosen Microsoft’s hold on the collaboration market, but most have failed to make much headway. Customers show a frustrating (to competitors) patience and reluctance to shift from the Microsoft products they have invested heavily in over the years. But something is coming which will make at least some switch: The Cloud.

Like an idea in a gloomy science fiction movie, The Cloud sits on the horizon with the potential to change, if not everything, at least quite a lot. While companies aren’t terribly interested in swapping one client-server, thick application, on premise-based set of tools for another client-server, thick application, on premise-based product suite, they are almost to the point where they will consider a Cloud alternative.

While Sun famously said “The computer is the network” Cisco lives and breathes that sentiment. They even use the phrase “on network” when everyone else says “on premise.” Just like Oracle ultimately solves all problems with its database, Cisco instinctively makes the network the solution to everything. Cisco will (or should) build out a cloud-based offering with its new products, offering a new deployment model along with new functionality.

This would put Cisco on a collision course with Google, the current Cloud King. Google already uses the Jabber protocol and XMPP standard closely associated with Jabber, and almost no one else. SIP/SIMPLE is the current favorite presence protocol. Cisco’s strengths and strategies make a collision with Google much more likely in the long term than a direct confrontation with Microsoft.

Of course, none of this really matters. No matter what a vendor does in the collaboration space, Microsoft is the ultimate target. The big story of the day is how Cisco has added another arrow to its quiver as it attacks Fort Office. The next part of the story could get more complicated, and interesting.