Hi Koen,
Thank you for this version, I also leave the WP3 list in CC since the discussion is interesting for all of us w.r.t Market Study Contributions.
You have basically two open items: Market Overview/TopPlayers and Vertical Markets to write and I comment here on your input so far:
2) Vertical Markets:
Currently you have no input there as I see, right? You need to add it then, its open.
Can you please "really" mention some vertical markets (2-3) that you will/can address and stay not fuzzy here (--> I am not good in market analysis writing myself :) I cannot help here much, so if you can, do it please)
So just mention some markets (like automotive, etc) where your technology will be directly or indirectly offered to or by which customer segments you plan that they use your stuff ultimately. For example, the customer segments from iMinds might be useful, if it fits?
Additionally (not instead of, if possible) please write a few concrete examples here. My idea is that a reader can see how really you results from FI-WARE are going directly or -indirectly into something useful for customers that you address ("the BPM extensions are used by company CY and the editor is integrated into our release 10 in 2092, customer xy asked for this and we adapt). If not possible, describe "concept exploitation" like "we learned in FI-WARE XY and we applied this in designing product XY that we offer to client xy and they use it for or plan to use it for...)
1) Market Overview:
First: I am not expert in such Market Studys and we all try to get along tgo produce something "similar" instead more or less IMHO which hopefully does the job....So kindly please take my comments into this context :)
This what you wrote is ok as a starter describing a context w.r.t. important State-of-the-art work, but you might need to add something besides this:
I miss (maybe I am wrong) a _clear_ visibility and more isolated discussion of company names of important players, market shares of them (ideally), competition analysis, real product names (if there, please highlight them or prepend "product:" or so to the name) and license info - how they sell their products. If possible, a critical paragraph on how you judge their standing or their market approach on your own and slightly compared to your own approach maybe (reminds me to the "competitive statement" we once wrote, maybe you can reuse this here, too..)
· I think, you have written about a few products (YELLOW) this already in the text below: You have some companies and products, if I understand right. I mark them in YELLOW? You can shape this and make it more the primary concern in your text
· You might move the "technologies" or "methods" (RED) (maybe some of my red markings are products then I am wrong for these but you can get my point) a little to the background (is "Collaborative business modelling (CBM)" such)? By doing so you clearly isolate the PRODUCTS (YELLOW) then. Would that be feasible what I write?
The technologies-related texts can stay in the text but they are IMHO less interesting than markets, companiesm, products, license models IMHO.
· What you currently do not have IMHO is a discussion of companies and license models for the products you discuss in the text. Info on that would be useful.
--> Summary: "More YELLOW-like Stuff" and separate YELLOW from RED stuff would be highly welcome:)
As an idea, you can/should e.g. simply write it more like a "top 3" of them down into a bullet list and discuss then each of these bullets for each listed player in this bullet(company a has products X,Y with pay-per-use licsense, company b, company) , e.g. (this "top 3 list" is my own idea, but it helps in getting us into direction that we talk about companies and markets (the topic to write about) and not only technologies or state-of-the-art of techniques, methods, standards or alike.
Again, you can leave this text and add to it or reshape it, but need to add something about players (companies), product names, licenses or alike - like a business analyst more or less, at least the fundament so to say.
Best
Markus
---
Your Market Overview text here was:
"Existing approaches for business modeling
* Osterwalder Business Canvas: The business canvas is a flattened business modeling approach focusing on the interaction of one business offering (called value offering) with potential customers, financing, suppliers, cooperation and competition. It is a strictly descriptive format and limited to a one player one offering setting. Basically the approach works with a paper based canvas to be used in an interactive setting, for which various alternatives exist including software applications. Based on our view of the market, no web based application for this canvas exist, neither does any extension to this canvas allow for quantification.
* E3-value is an implementation of fairly detailed business modeling approach linking roles to each other by means of ports in which exchanges of value to product or services are made. The application can be tested free of charge from the site. The e3-value is a standalone java graphical user interface. It provides a very technical approach with a very steep learning curve, which is however still limited in quantification possibilities. As such it misses an intuitive and interactive business modeling approach as well as the very detailed cost and revenue modeling. It misses revenue and pricing modeling as well as full value net simulation.
* Moby presents a very fine grained description language which allows to describe the links between different roles with many details on the type, kind and source of role (e.g. financial, resource, process, etc.), but with limited to no information on the costs and revenues. Actual details for quantification are limited to fixed numbers and not functional links to either goals, models, drivers or time-dependent values.
* The Business model wizard (BMW) allows for the creating of a business model by configuring 25 elements using an online form. The result is a business model that can be analysed and compared to the business models of existing organisations. While this is an easy to use approach, it focuses on one organisation and is constrained by the 25 elements that are part of the model.
* The Collaborative business modelling (CBM) approach, which uses the Business Model Canvas by placing post-it notes on the canvas, generating a number of business models. After this is done, the business models are prioritised on the dimensions of attractiveness and effort. The models that are most attractive and take least effort are the ones that get most attention in the validation phase.
* SIMBU : business modeling approach which precedes the BEMES approach. This is used as basis for the development of the business modeling approach. As such SIMBU is an asset and not a competitive force.
The following table gives a comparison of the different business modeling approaches in terms of functionality, expressiveness and quantification possibilities:
BEMES
e3 value
Moby
BMW
BMC
CBM
Value Proposition
+/-
- -
+ +
-
+ +
+ +
Multiple Actors
+ +
+ +
+ / -
- -
- -
- -
Flexible Relations
+ +
+ +
+ +
- -
- -
- -
Value Net Completeness
+
+ +
+ +
- -
- -
- -
Value Net Simulation
+ +
- -
+ / -
+ / -
- -
- -
Ease of Use
+
- -
- -
+ +
+ +
+
Intuitivism
+
-
-
- -
+ +
+ +
Clearly BEMES business modeler differentiates to the existing offerings on the market by providing an expressive business modeling language in an intuitive interactive setting. The link to business calculator providing input for detailed time-dependent long term cost and revenue quantification is the second main differentiator.
Existing approaches for cost and revenue modeling and estimation
* Business Process Modeling Notation is an approach focused on modeling operational processes by means of a flowchart based approach. Considering the vast realm of tools linking to this modeling format, the extensive set of modeling elements and the strong standard on this, we have built our tool to model and calculate using (a subset of) this format. Additionally the linked and standardized XML Process Description Language is used in reading and storing these models, allowing the exchange with other parties. The open standard allows to freely build upon this and use and interact with other tools.
* Activity Based Costing is a quantification approach building on top of a flowchart based modeling approach (e.g. BPMN). This is thoroughly described in literature and our quantification approach for the BPMN models has used this ABC as basis for the calculations.
* ARIS is a toolkit which is focusing on using operational process descriptions together with asset management and measurements to get a view on the running costs of a company and allocation of the costs to the different activities. Calculation is in fact a smart aggregation of measurements and the tool is focused on documentation and reporting.
* MEGA business process modeling is actually the main competitor for ARIS and provides comparable functionality.
Clearly BEMES business calculator differentiates to the existing offerings on the market by providing an expressive and extensible set of long term domain specific modeling languages for various types of costs and revenues all working with detailed time dependent inputs and generating equally detailed output estimations over time. The inherently pluggable approach, allowing for both additional domain specific languages, links to existing standards and additional calculators is a second differentiator. Finally the linking to the business modeler, allowing to build large scale interactions and answer higher level quantitative questions is a third very important differentiator (e.g. which price should we ask to get a predefined profit, is the business model profitable for all partners, how will costs increase over time for the full offering, etc.). This last differentiator allows modeling in different levels of detail the interaction between different players, roles and interactions and combining various domain specific languages into one quantifiable business case. "
From: koen casier [mailto:koen.casier at intec.ugent.be]
Sent: Donnerstag, 24. April 2014 23:20
To: Heller, Markus; Camille Reynders; Alvaro Arranz; JAVIER LUCIO RUIZ-ANDINO; Javier Soriano (jsoriano at fi.upm.es)
Cc: FI-WARE Apps (fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.org)
Subject: Re: MArket
Hi Markus, all,
iMinds is working on this document and a new version can be found in attachment.
We will be finalizing this as soon as possible and at least send a new version by tomorrow EOB.
We believe that an update in the course of next week might be required though.
Would it be possible to have a look at our new additions on pp. 50-52
and check whether this is in line with the bullet list approach suggested in one of the previous mails?
All suggestions for additions and corrections are welcome as well of course.
best regards,
Koen
On 4/24/2014 9:35 AM, Heller, Markus wrote:
Hi UPM, SAP, iMinds,
Can you please send me a reply today how you plan to proceed here and if ok for you. I have received no reply so I do not know (to my knowledge, you all are not in easter holidays, right?)
Please note that the deadline for this would be 28.4., please confirm that ok with you.
Best
Markus
From: Heller, Markus
Sent: Mittwoch, 23. April 2014 15:41
To: Koen Casier (koen.casier at intec.ugent.be<mailto:koen.casier at intec.ugent.be>); Camille Reynders; Alvaro Arranz; JAVIER LUCIO RUIZ-ANDINO; Javier Soriano (jsoriano at fi.upm.es<mailto:jsoriano at fi.upm.es>)
Cc: FI-WARE Apps (fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.org<mailto:fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.org>)
Subject: RE: MArket
Hi UPM, SAP, iMinds,
I attach the drafted WORD (V3). Please check, basically the idea as below....adopting SOTA content and updating and tailoring for different target reader (market analyst instead of state of the art).
To focus on the most interesting area first, I would think we should put stores/marketplaces analyis and bemes into foreground and move registry/repository into the second, less important line since there a market analysis is less obvious.
Best
Markus
From: Heller, Markus
Sent: Mittwoch, 23. April 2014 13:49
To: Koen Casier (koen.casier at intec.ugent.be<mailto:koen.casier at intec.ugent.be>); Camille Reynders; JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ (jdps at tid.es<mailto:jdps at tid.es>); Alvaro Arranz; JAVIER LUCIO RUIZ-ANDINO
Cc: FI-WARE Apps (fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.org<mailto:fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.org>)
Subject: FW: MArket
Hi UPM, SAP, iMinds, TID,
For the Market study deliverable, we are together in the first "usage scenario" group named "1. Exploring new business models with the Business Framework (@ UPM, SAP, iMinds, TID)", that is why I wrote only to the four of us directly:
The core idea of how we can structure our text contribution for this deliverable as said before (in the WP3 telco and my mail from yesterday) is to motivate at the beginning re-using/citing from D12.2.2 "Exploitation Plan" storyline of chapter "4.4 Applications Services Ecosystem" that in WP3 there are three building blocks of the infrastructure we provide as WP (Core business framework, composition tools, mediator) and that we have four "usage scenarios" as described there.
I have now started to draft an outline of our contributions needed as input. I can send it around later today so that spaces are assigned where you can fill-in your content - if you agree.
For our usage scenario Nr.1 we have to describe (a) Market Structure / Top Players and (b) Vertical Markets, I propose this:
· For (a) Market Structure Top Players:
I would create a skeleton text that has multiple slots where you then fill in some content, basically each slot with a top 3-5 list & brief discussion of players or products (preferably discuss players first (reason: if we all this the same, it looks more homogenous, but if more useful, then go ahead and discuss products, afterall we are happy for any contents.....
You can heavily build on the SOTA content that you wrote before in the Project, so that it is rather consistent naturally. I have copied some content into the template I already sent, but feel free and help yourself. Afterall, just fill your slots...
If you do not agree, with this skeleton & slots approach, please mail to all mail receivers so that we can discuss in the team.
· For (b): Vertical markets:
Here I see a rather loose list with bullet points, where we collect vertical markets and real examples (examples are important as requested by reviewers). Each one of us provides some, so that the whole list gives the overview where we are active. Markets are briefly described (1-2 sentences) and why they are relevant for us here, example also briefly described.
If you do not agree with this bullet list freestyle approach (chosen mainly because we can contribute individually and puzzle it together), please mail to all mail receivers so that we can discuss in the team.
OK? Please reply if you agree or not.
I will send later today or tomorrow early morning the next WORD with my prefilled text areas (not final, but giving you the slots)...
Best
Markus
From: Heller, Markus
Sent: Mittwoch, 23. April 2014 09:24
To: FI-WARE Apps (fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.org<mailto:fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.org>)
Subject: RE: MArket
Hi all,
A Hint that I collected from Juan:
For section 3.4.1 "Market Structure" you might consider using your SOTA content that your wrote in previous deliverables and update this in 4.3.1.
But please remind, that IMHO you _must_ mention in your text relevant companies and product names and discuss them a bit - not only mentioning some technologies (like XML, BPMN, ...), or let me say so that at least I consider this not enough.
To fulfill this, please do not forget to add such as a "top 3-5 list" of players or product in your market area and add a short discussion of these players or product - it must not be too long but IMHO should not be missed since it is the minimum example of a market overview.
Best
Markus
From: Heller, Markus
Sent: Dienstag, 22. April 2014 17:42
To: FI-WARE Apps (fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.org<mailto:fiware-apps at lists.fi-ware.org>)
Subject: MArket
Hi all,
Under leadership of Juan Barreno we have to deliver the WP3 part of D.11.1.3: FI-WARE Market and Competition Analysis. D11.1.3 goes hand in hand with the D11.2.3 Exploitation Plan where we also have to contribute.
I attach the current WORD draft of the deliverable and explain the approach (attachment):
A) Table of Contents:
Please check the attached WORD, I have structured our WP3 contributions to D11.1.3 like this:
We need to deliver the WP3 part there, where we contribute the complete section 4.3 "Economy of Internet Application".
Please check also the COMMENTS and the chapters 4.4ff where I (will be deleted) later copy/pasted possible texts from SOTA, Market Study, or Exploitation Plan deliverables which might be helpful for you (or not).
[cid:image001.png at 01CF6065.8D7BFBF0]
B) Needed Contributions:
· The sections on "3.4.1 Market Structures" and "3.4.2 Vertical Markets" are requested by Juan and reviewers - and they will be collectively written by us all.
· For this to happen, we will in each subsection simply report along the "usage scenarios" concept that we have introduced in our last D11.2.2 "Exploitation Plan".
Reason behind is that this allows this way to have more targeted areas/partial market where we can write about:
"These building blocks are described along four key usage scenarios (see D11.2.2 Exploitation Plan). In the following, the analysis is structured according to these key usage scenarios which address different partial markets.
1. Exploring new business models with the Business Framework (@ UPM, SAP, iMinds, TID)
2. Revenue sharing (@TID)
3. Supporting service composition and crowd-sourcing (@ATOS, UPM, EAB, DT)
4. Supporting Interoperability with Mediation (@TI, THALES)"
C) Teams/Authors:
· per usage scenario, we contribute in the teams as marked above in the YELLOW marking.
D) Deadlines for D11.1.3:
· "Wave 1" - only for M36 leaving partners (SAP, iminds, DT) --> Juan did not set a deadline, so I neded to set one. I set it to 28.April EOB so that we need to deliver this week the contents or on Monday next week.
· "Wave 2" - for all others staying longer --> Juan did not set a deadline
E) Your Action Items:
· @SAP, iMinds, DT: Please proceed and contribute your part of the work, please reach out to your coauthors for this to happen.
o Only wave 1 partners need to contribute NOW (SAP, iMinds, DT), the others can deliver later if they wish according to Juan.
o I see a dilemma that e.g. for usage scenario 1 and 2, wave 1 partners need to deliver with wave 2 partners so how to ensure that they fit together.
o To solve this dilemma, the wave 1 partners must write useful (!) section NOW and contact your wave2 co-authors NOW to align/agree that your wave 1 contribution works together with their wave 2 contributions. I will also try to ensure this - but I will leave in 2 weeks so I recommend to organize this between you also to be on the safe side here. Please signal if you have difficulties here, so that I can try to help.
o Wave 1 authors will deliver until deadline (28.4.) and the parts are delivered to TID as "internal deliverable" to get a small contribution certificate that we have delivered.
· @ALL OTHERS:
o Please contact your wave 1 co-authors on your own align/agree with your co-authors NOW that your wave 2 contribution works together with the wave 1 contributions. I will also try to ensure this - but I will leave in 2 weeks so I recommend to organize this between you also to be on the safe side here. Please signal if you have difficulties here, so that I can try to help.
Orga Telco possible: If many wish, we can organize a telco tomorrow on this topic to make sure that no questions remain. Please signal your interest...
Best wishes
Markus
---------
Hi Markus
The 28th is Ok for me
Best
Juan
Juan Bareño
Research & Innovation
Account Executive European Union Institutions-Iberia
T. +34 912 148 859
M. +34 625 598 216
juan.bareno at atos.net<mailto:juan.bareno at atos.net>
Albarracín, 25
28037 Madrid - Spain
atos.net
[cid:image002.png at 01CF21D2.D8BA98F0]
From: Heller, Markus [mailto:markus.heller at sap.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 3:38 PM
To: Bareno Guerenabarrena, Juan
Subject: RE: WP11 Tasks for partners leaving on M36
Hi Juan,
What is the deadline date for the Exploitation Plan and for the Market analysis to be delivered to you, I have not found a given deadline below, sorry?
I guess you do not need to carry out checks but just more or less, if the format etc appropriate, collect our plan and check it and then together with TID issue the "internal deliverable certificate" then for this contribution.
So would a deadline Monday 28.04. ok you?
Best
Markus
From: Bareno Guerenabarrena, Juan [mailto:juan.bareno at atos.net]
Sent: Dienstag, 8. April 2014 20:09
To: fiware-exploitation at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-exploitation at lists.fi-ware.eu>; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>; Heller, Markus; Amon, Peter (p.amon at siemens.com<mailto:p.amon at siemens.com>); Bettina.Lehmann at telekom.de<mailto:Bettina.Lehmann at telekom.de>; Hans.Einsiedler at telekom.de<mailto:Hans.Einsiedler at telekom.de>; Banniza, Thomas-Rolf (Thomas-Rolf (thomas-rolf.banniza at alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:thomas-rolf.banniza at alcatel-lucent.com>); Wuenstel, Klaus (Klaus (klaus.wuenstel at alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:klaus.wuenstel at alcatel-lucent.com>); Seidl, Robert (NSN - DE/Munich (robert.seidl at nsn.com<mailto:robert.seidl at nsn.com>); koen.casier at intec.ugent.be<mailto:koen.casier at intec.ugent.be>
Cc: lindsay.frost at neclab.eu<mailto:lindsay.frost at neclab.eu>; De-Lama Sanchez, Nuria; mcp at tid.es<mailto:mcp at tid.es>
Subject: WP11 Tasks for partners leaving on M36
Dear Colleagues
I need your contributions to WP11 deliverables before you leave the project on M36. My colleague Lindsay Frost from NEC, in cc, should demand your contributions for standardization deliverable.
Basically I need the following:
· Individual exploitation plans, from the partners in the list below, following the instructions defined in each individual partner profile, see Annex 1- D11.2.3 attached.
· All the individual exploitation plans should be described in the Annex 1 of the D11.2.3
· Just additional/significative info that should be consider as confidential could be delivered in a confidential basis to Arian (Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>)
· We will make a follow-up in the next WPL meetings
[cid:image005.jpg at 01CF57F7.E6EEEBF0]
[cid:image006.jpg at 01CF57F7.E6EEEBF0]
· WP3 contribution, as SAP leads it, regarding D11.1.3- Apps - Market Analysis (state of art, competitors, similar solutions in the market, potential added value, potential business models...) and D11.2.3- FI WARE Apps building block Exploitation (added value, business model selected, FI-Lab modus operandi.....)- SEE Initial draft TOCs attached and add or provide reference documents to complete
· Please take into account the following recommendations for the next review, some contribution (reference text, studies, references...) for the following recommendations for the review, will be very welcome and appreciated:
D11.1.3- Market Analysis
· Analysis of last review recommendations analysis
· Continue to analyze ICT Market situation in relation with GEs
· The exploitation of FI technologies in the three main market sectors of Smart Cities, Smart Business, and Smart Home needs to be deepened
· The perspectives of the demand side are comparatively lacking even for the main verticals identified, e.g. business related services and manufacturing
· The policy and regulatory analysis in relation to the specific themes (Data protection, Cloud Computing, FI-LAB modus operandi)
D11.2.3- Exploitation Plan
· FI-LAB Modus Operandi, Financing and Business model definition is needed and even how this vehicle is to be created in the first instance is totally opaque and uncertain.
· To define the extent of collaboration with the EIT ICT lab
· The potential policy issues and impact on the specific exploitation activities of FI-WARE partners and the evolution of the FI LAB should be more specifically identified and described
· At a detailed level, the document is less concrete in the examples and scenario descriptions provided in the Apps market sections. Some statements might be (even) more convincing if backed up by survey results; e.g. the business opportunity of the M2M market
· Individual exploitation plans, from the partners in the list below, following the instructions defined in each individual partner profile, see Annex 1- D11.2.3 attached.
D11.4.3- Standardization
· A Standardization Global Picture is required, as an effective means to enable market uptake of FI WARE results
Juan Bareño
Research & Innovation
Account Executive European Union Institutions-Iberia
T. +34 912 148 859
M. +34 625 598 216
juan.bareno at atos.net<mailto:juan.bareno at atos.net>
Albarracín, 25
28037 Madrid - Spain
atos.net
[cid:image007.jpg at 01CF57F7.E6EEEBF0]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-apps/attachments/20140425/7a82826b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18991 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-apps/attachments/20140425/7a82826b/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4687 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-apps/attachments/20140425/7a82826b/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9354 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-apps/attachments/20140425/7a82826b/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3257 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-apps/attachments/20140425/7a82826b/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4657 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-apps/attachments/20140425/7a82826b/attachment-0002.jpg>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy