In order for a business to develop an effective BYOD policy, DONALD FARMER, VP of Innovation and Design at Qlik believes company owners need to first understand why and when employees switch between devices and what makes them choose certain devices for certain tasks.
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) responsive, and multi-device are just some words that today are part of our lives. Multi-device strategies are devised and policies are prepared for BYOD. The use of different devices has led to a whole new way of working. Gartner predicts that by 2018 more than half of users will be using a tablet or smartphone for all online activities rather than the traditional laptop or desktop. But to what extent do we actually stand still by the role of different devices? Why and when do business users actually switch between tablet, smartphone or computer? And what moves them to choose certain devices in certain activities?
If we can answer these questions, a multi-device or BYOD policy is really effective. Time to get some new insights above water, so that management can better respond to the needs of the business.
Reasons for using different devices
Where once on the desk of the average employee stood a desk phone and a desktop, there is now a laptop, a smartphone, perhaps a tablet and in some cases even an e-reader. During the day there is plenty of use of these devices. Why? A recent global survey of Qlik shows that there are three main reasons:
Employees first believe they can thus increase their productivity. An argument, which managers actually need to sound as music to the ears. Indeed, the increasing productivity in the workplace is not something you want to fight as an organisation, but rather to stimulate. Obviously, it is with the use of multiple devices, important to take account of Shadow IT, but for now we leave that out of consideration. In second place, is keeping it up to date. Think about sending out an email via the laptop at the end of the workday and on the way home via the smartphone to see if there has been a reaction. This motivation is also linked to number three: respond quickly to circumstances. Imagine if the employee is in a meeting and he gets an important phone call or an e-mail via the tablet inside. With the use of multiple devices the employee can take action immediately. The main reason to use multiple devices is that each one is aimed at orienting the work as effectively as possible and to improve where necessary.
Multiple devices for one activity
Now we understand the question about why people switch between devices and what devices still remains, but the answer is not clear. Typically, for example, activities that are started on the laptop are also finished on the laptop. However, when employees begin operations on their smartphone, these are usually rounded to the laptop. Think to send emails, view reports and write lyrics. The tablet is the least popular to start and complete tasks. Only watching a video begins and ends on the tablet. When it comes to chatting and calendar management, the employee switches over to the smartphone. In all other cases, the laptop is switched on.
The main triggers for users to switch between devices are activities such as navigating to websites, finding specific information and sending links by email. The smartphone in all cases appears to be the most popular device to switch to.
Now we know that employees look for opportunities to work effectively and switch over their functions between different devices, it is important that this way of working is well facilitated by the management. A precondition for this is the use of the right tools – tooling that is Mobile-First developed. These solutions primarily keep the mobile user in mind in the development and design. Thus, for Mobile-First developed technology the essence of information is directly visible and is also matched to the screen that you are using at the time. This way users can easily get the right information to themselves and thus will effectively work.
Still, mobile-first tooling is still not developed by all software vendors. So it is extra important that the management in the tool selection process pay attention as to whether it meets the Mobile-First conditions. But now is also the time to take another critical look at existing tooling. Because to truly meet the needs of the business, the information needs to be available anytime, anywhere via any device. Mobile first is not the only solution, but can have a considerably large contribution. Ultimately, the goal about the intention to work productively is to turn it into reality. It is the only way to take action and to work towards the mapped needs of the business. A good intention for 2016?
VoD cuts the cord in SA
Some 20% of South Africans who sign up for a subscription video on demand (SVOD) service such as Netflix or Showmax do so with the intention of cancelling their pay television subscription.
That’s according to GfK’s international ViewScape survey*, which this year covers Africa (South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria) for the first time.
The study—which surveyed 1,250 people representative of urban South African adults with Internet access—shows that 90% of the country’s online adults today use at least one online video service and that just over half are paying to view digital online content. The average user spends around 7 hours and two minutes a day consuming video content, with broadcast television accounting for just 42% of the time South Africans spend in front of a screen.
Consumers in South Africa spend nearly as much of their daily viewing time – 39% of the total – watching free digital video sources such as YouTube and Facebook as they do on linear television. People aged 18 to 24 years spend more than eight hours a day watching video content as they tend to spend more time with free digital video than people above their age.
Says Benjamin Ballensiefen, managing director for Sub Sahara Africa at GfK: “The media industry is experiencing a revolution as digital platforms transform viewers’ video consumption behaviour. The GfK ViewScape study is one of the first to not only examine broadcast television consumption in Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa, but also to quantify how linear and online forms of content distribution fit together in the dynamic world of video consumption.”
The study finds that just over a third of South African adults are using streaming video on demand (SVOD) services, with only 16% of SVOD users subscribing to multiple services. Around 23% use per-pay-view platforms such as DSTV Box Office, while about 10% download pirated content from the Internet. Around 82% still sometimes watch content on disc-based media.
“Linear and non-linear television both play significant roles in South Africa’s video landscape, though disruption from digital players poses a growing threat to the incumbents,” says Molemo Moahloli, general manager for media research & regional business development at GfK Sub Sahara Africa. “Among most demographics, usage of paid online content is incremental to consumption of linear television, but there are signs that younger consumers are beginning to substitute SVOD for pay-television subscriptions.”
New data rules raise business trust challenges
When the General Data Protection Regulation comes into effect on May 25th, financial services firms will face a new potential threat to their on-going challenges with building strong customer relationships, writes DARREL ORSMOND, Financial Services Industry Head at SAP Africa.
The regulation – dubbed GDPR for short – is aimed at giving European citizens control back over their personal data. Any firm that creates, stores, manages or transfers personal information of an EU citizen can be held liable under the new regulation. Non-compliance is not an option: the fines are steep, with a maximum penalty of €20-million – or nearly R300-million – for transgressors.
GDPR marks a step toward improved individual rights over large corporates and states that prevents the latter from using and abusing personal information at their discretion. Considering the prevailing trust deficit – one global EY survey found that 60% of global consumers worry about hacking of bank accounts or bank cards, and 58% worry about the amount of personal and private data organisations have about them – the new regulation comes at an opportune time. But it is almost certain to cause disruption to normal business practices when implemented, and therein lies both a threat and an opportunity.
The fundamentals of trust
GDPR is set to tamper with two fundamental factors that can have a detrimental effect on the implicit trust between financial services providers and their customers: firstly, customers will suddenly be challenged to validate that what they thought companies were already doing – storing and managing their personal data in a manner that is respectful of their privacy – is actually happening. Secondly, the outbreak of stories relating to companies mistreating customer data or exposing customers due to security breaches will increase the chances that customers now seek tangible reassurance from their providers that their data is stored correctly.
The recent news of Facebook’s indiscriminate sharing of 50 million of its members’ personal data to an outside firm has not only led to public outcry but could cost the company $2-trillion in fines should the Federal Trade Commission choose to pursue the matter to its fullest extent. The matter of trust also extends beyond personal data: in EY’s 2016 Global Consumer Banking Survey, less than a third of respondents had complete trust that their banks were being transparent about fees and charges.
This is forcing companies to reconsider their role in building and maintaining trust with its customers. In any customer relationship, much is done based on implicit trust. A personal banking customer will enjoy a measure of familiarity that often provides them with some latitude – for example when applying for access to a new service or an overdraft facility – that can save them a lot of time and energy. Under GDPR and South Africa’s POPI act, this process is drastically complicated: banks may now be obliged to obtain permission to share customer data between different business units (for example because they are part of different legal entities and have not expressly received permission). A customer may now allow banks to use their personal data in risk scoring models, but prevent them from determining whether they qualify for private banking services.
What used to happen naturally within standard banking processes may be suddenly constrained by regulation, directly affecting the bank’s relationship with its customers, as well as its ability to upsell to existing customers.
The risk of compliance
Are we moving to an overly bureaucratic world where even the simplest action is subject to a string of onerous processes? Compliance officers are already embedded within every function in a typical financial services institution, as well as at management level. Often the reporting of risk processes sits outside formal line functions and end up going straight to the board. This can have a stifling effect on innovation, with potentially negative consequences for customer service.
A typical banking environment is already creaking under the weight of close to 100 acts, which makes it difficult to take the calculated risks needed to develop and launch innovative new banking products. Entire new industries could now emerge, focusing purely on the matter of compliance and associated litigation. GDPR already requires the services of Data Protection Officers, but the growing complexity of regulatory compliance could add a swathe of new job functions and disciplines. None of this points to the type of innovation that the modern titans of business are renowned for.
A three-step plan of action
So how must banks and other financial services firms respond? I would argue there are three main elements to successfully navigating the immediate impact of the new regulations:
Firstly, ensuring that the technologies you use to secure, manage and store personal data is sufficiently robust. Modern financial services providers have a wealth of customer data at their disposal, including unstructured data from non-traditional sources such as social media. The tools they use to process and safeguard this data needs to be able to withstand the threats posed by potential data breaches and malicious attacks.
Secondly, rethinking the core organisational processes governing their interactions with customers. This includes the internal measures for setting terms and conditions, how customers are informed of their intention to use their data, and how risk is assessed. A customer applying for medical insurance will disclose deeply personal information about themselves to the insurance provider: it is imperative the insurer provides reassurance that the customer’s data will be treated respectfully and with discretion and with their express permission.
Thirdly, financial services firms need to define a core set of principles for how they treat customers and what constitutes fair treatment. This should be an extension of a broader organisational focus on treating customers fairly, and can go some way to repairing the trust deficit between the financial services industry and the customers they serve.