We need a name. Four names really. Okay, maybe five.

So far we’re stumped.

Every decision, every action has been the product of collaboration and passionate discussion, yet this elephant in the room seems to receive sporadic attention, or inattention. It’s the blank screen problem on a billboard scale.

Its seems that this one area of the project has been relegated to our quiet contemplative moments – almost as an afterthought.

This needs to change.

We need a rambunctious, semi-professional stream of consciousness type discussion that can put 50 to 100 names on the table in short order.

No filter. No judgments. Just ideas.

We spent a lot of time talking about the right message for Mercury Grove’s splash page before there was much to show for it.

I think that this particular task took on serious significance for Scott A. There’s a lot riding on this call to action and so it needs to be just right. We need to hit the right chord with potential customers/ community members, find our voice and phrase it smoothly enough that readers won’t give it a second thought. It’s a lot to expect from 50 words.

With several discarded drafts, it’s easy to lose site of the progress being made – however incremental. Our meeting at Dunn’s was valuable – there’s nothing like blueskying over smoked meat on rye – but the more business-minded contingent of the group shot our idea to pieces before I was hungry again. First comes frustration, then comes perseverance.

Later that night, it took a shift in thinking and a 45-minute conversation with Scott A. to brainstorm a new direction. We still had nothing concrete, but we knew what might work. Scott wanted to bounce the idea off a few people.

Working this problem through has been purley collaborative. There are a lot of really strong writers working together so a bit of a defined approach might tighten up the way we work through drafts.

That said, all this stop-start contributes to an intimate appreciation of who we are, what we do and how we’re going to tell people about it. Try having the same high-level conversation 20 times over, but explaining it in a different way with different vocabulary each time and you’ll see what I mean.

I understand Mercury Grove more today than I did yesterday. And I’ve been saying that since day one.

Nearly ten years ago a small team in a small San Francisco apartment launched “The End of Software” revolution.  The fundamental concept was that companies didn’t need to “own” software code and host it within their network.  Instead people could access the software remotely via a web browser at the office, at home, or anywhere there was an internet connection.  The type of software was a logical starting point - customer management software that the salesforce could access while on the road.  And Salesforce.com was born.

Over the last 10 years Salesforce.com has led the transformation for how people use software at work.  Today most corporate applications are accessed through a web browser and many of these are hosted outside the network by external companies.  Over time, the “End of Software” revolution evolved into a new trend of ”Software on Demand” or “Software as a Service” which allows companies to rent software rather than having to purchase it.

But to the users of the software, it is not a service.  It’s software.

The future of software needs to be more than just forms and databases, it should actively and purposely help educate people who use the software on best practices, industry standards, and success stories on how to achieve a task or manage a process more effectively.

As we develop our software we are looking at how we can further empower the people that use our software to improve their customer relationships by providing success stories, feedback on industry ratios and norms, inspirational stories, tips from experts, quality content from the web…

I think that is the kind of service that software companies should be providing, and I hope that people will begin to expect it from their software partners.

Surely we are past the “utility age” of computing.