By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 8th February 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

In two separate recent announcements, HP has affirmed its goal of being the neutral supplier of choice for all things cloud.

Last week, HP delivered HP Discovery and Dependency Mapping Advanced (DDMA) Content Pack 10, bringing with the ability to better manage cloud instances across the enterprise-public cloud continuum, including deep discovery of virtualized workloads' performance inside of Amazon and VMware vCloud clouds.

Then this week, HP on Tuesday further thrust its global market-leading LoadRunner performance testing suite—via partners—into development clouds, known as platform as a service (PaaS) providers. This is clearly aimed at the fast-growing mobile development and greenfield SMB development spaces.

Interestingly, neither the cloud operations efficiency benefits of the updated DDMA nor the HP LoadRunner-in-the-Cloud offering will be initially offered inside of any HP public clouds. These formerly enterprise-targeted development and operations tools are being extended to more private and public cloud uses—but via cloud ecosystems, partners and channels. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Picks and shovels
While HP is not taking the arrival of its own public cloud offerings off the table—indeed they have committed to them in the past—they seem to be happy for now to develop the picks and shovels and provide them to the miners and the current mine owners.

The strategy lessens the potential for conflict that other cloud providers such as Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Salesforce.com and VMware can face (no mention yet of Microsoft Azure). And it makes HP more amenable as a supplier to those public clouds, which may be of interest to them, given both HP's technologies and their vast and global installed base of enterprise customers.

Digging more deeply into the news items, the DDMA Content Pack 10 brings a critical part of the HP IT Performance Suite to more types of cloud uses, as well as back into more kinds of mainframes, particularly for the IBM iSeries servers. Reaching more deeply into legacy workloads and across various cloud and hybrid models allows for more automation of those apps and runtimes, and fosters far better change management when those loads need to be adjusted to accommodate varying demands.

HP is also enabling any IP-pingable device to be discovered, mapped, and managed via the various online deployments. The overall benefit is more a lifecycle approach to management of apps and devices across legacy and hybrid environments, and to gain a single view as a business service of all the parts that support the apps and processes regardless of their locations.

Discovery capabilities have also been added for HP ServiceGuard, Glassfish open-source server and VMware Datastore. In addition, integration has also been enhanced to include CiscoWorks LAN Management Solution (LMS), Aperture VISTA, NNMi, Application Signature and Service-Now. Functionality has also been added to the integration of Troux. Finally, Content Pack 10 provides new features such as support for SAP JCo3, Oracle VM Server for SPARC, UCMDB to XML export and a BMC Atrium pull adapter.

Three partners
On the LoadRunner news today, HP has worked so far with three partners that will take the LoadRunner on demand services out to their specific customers and on their public clouds of their choices. The initial partners are: Orasi Software Inc., Genilogix and J9 Technologies. These partners will set the pricing, but the performance testing services are delivered on a pay as you go basis.

"This is unique. It's the easiest, lowest-cost way to bring LoadRunner capabilities to the cloud," said Matt Morgan, senior director, Product and Solution Marketing, Software, HP.

Incidentally, the testing phase of the cloud PaaS proposition is essential for quick devops and RAD benefits. It further allows any investments that enterprises have made in Loadrunner to be extended via the cloud providers to developers working on new mobile projects, or for them to control and view testing results when using third-party developers.

By straddling the cloud-enterprise ecosystem HP may be able to bring more value to the channel partners and end users—especially SMBs—then trying to build the whole cloud first and putting in services later. It's the ecosystem of services, after all, not the location of them, that matters most.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 6th February 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

This guest post comes courtesy of Chris Harding, Forum Director for SOA and Semantic Interoperability at The Open Group.

This week, I've been at The Open Group Conference in San Francisco. The theme was Enterprise Transformation which, in simple terms, means changing how your business works to take advantage of the latest developments in IT.

Evidence of these developments is all around. For example, when I took a break and went for coffee and a sandwich to a little cafe on Pine and Leavenworth, it seemed to be run by and for the Millennial Generation. True to type, my server pulled out a cellphone with a device attached through which I swiped my credit card. An app read my screen-scrawled signature and the transaction was complete.

Then to make dinner reservations, the hotel concierge tapped a few keys on her terminal and, presto, we had a window table at a restaurant on Fisherman's Wharf. No lengthy phone negotiations with the maitre d'. We were just connected with the resource that we needed quickly and efficiently.

The power of ubiquitous technology to transform the enterprise was the theme of the inspirational plenary presentation given by Andy Mulholland, Global CTO and Corporate Vice President at Capgemini. Mobility, the cloud and big data are the three powerful technical forces that must be harnessed by the architect to move the business to smarter operation and new markets.

Jeanne Ross, Director and Principal Research Scientist at MIT's Center for Information System Research, shared her recipe for architecting business success with examples drawn from several major companies. Indomitable and inimitable, she always challenges her audience to think through the issues. This time we responded with: "Don't small companies need architecture too?" Of course they do, was the answer, but the architecture of a big corporation is very different from that of a corner cafe.

Corporations don't come much bigger than Nissan. Celso Guiotoko, Corporate VP and CIO at the Nissan Motor Company, told us how Nissan is using enterprise architecture for business transformation. Highlights included the concept of information capitalization, the rationalization of the application portfolio through service-oriented architecture (SOA) and reusable services, and the delivery of technology resource through a private cloud platform.

The set of stimulating plenary presentations on the first day of the conference was completed by Lauren States, VP and CTO Cloud Computing and Growth Initiatives at IBM. Everyone now expects business results from technical change, and there is huge pressure on the people involved to deliver results that meet these expectations. IT enablement is one part of the answer, but it must be matched by business process excellence and values-based culture for real productivity and growth.

My role in The Open Group is to support our work on cloud computing and SOA, and these activities took all my attention after the initial plenary. If you had thought five years ago that no technical trend could possibly generate more interest and excitement than SOA, cloud computing would now be proving you wrong.

Interest in SOA continues
But interest in SOA continues, and we had a SOA stream including presentations of forward thinking on how to use SOA to deliver agility, and on SOA governance, as well as presentations describing and explaining the use of key Open Group SOA standards and guides: the Service Integration Maturity Model (OSIMM), the SOA Reference Architecture, and the Guide to using TOGAF for SOA.

We then moved into the cloud stream with a presentation by Mike Walker of Microsoft on why enterprise architecture must lead cloud strategy and planning. The “why” was followed by the “how.” Zapthink's Jason Bloomberg described Representational State Transfer (REST), which many now see as a key foundational principle for cloud architecture. But perhaps it is not the only principle. A later presentation suggested a three-tier approach with the client tier, including mobile devices, accessing RESTful information resources through a middle tier of agents that compose resources and carry out transactions.

In the evening we had a CloudCamp, hosted by The Open Group and conducted as a separate event by the CloudCamp organization. The original CloudCamp concept was of an "un-conference" where early adopters of cloud computing technologies exchange ideas. Its founder, Dave Nielsen, is now planning to set up a demo center where those adopters can experiment with setting up private clouds. This transition from idea to experiment reflects the changing status of mainstream cloud adoption.

The public conference streams were followed by a meeting of the Open Group Cloud Computing Work Group. This is currently pursuing nine separate projects to develop standards and guidance for architects using cloud computing.

The meeting in San Francisco focused on one of these—the Cloud Computing Reference Architecture. It compared submissions from five companies, also taking into account ongoing work at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), with the aim of creating a base from which to create an Open Group reference architecture for cloud computing. This gave a productive finish to a busy week of information gathering and discussion.

Ralph Hitz of Visana, a health insurance company based in Switzerland, made an interesting comment on our reference architecture discussion. He remarked that we were not seeking to change or evolve the NIST service and deployment models. This may seem boring, but it is true and it is right. Cloud computing is now where the automobile was in 1920. We're pretty much agreed that it will have four wheels and be powered by gasoline. The business and economic impact is yet to come.

So now I'm on my way to the airport for the flight home. I checked in online, and my boarding pass is on my cellphone. Big companies, as well as small ones, now routinely use mobile technology, and my airline has a frequent-flyer app. It's just a shame that they can't manage a decent cup of coffee.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 3rd February 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

This guest post comes courtesy of Tony Baer’s OnStrategies blog. Tony is a senior analyst at Ovum.

To date, Big Storage has been locked out of Big Data. It’s been all about direct attached storage for several reasons. First, Advanced SQL players have typically optimized architectures from data structure (using columnar), unique compression algorithms, and liberal usage of caching to juice response over hundreds of terabytes. For the NoSQL side, it’s been about cheap, cheap, cheap along the Internet data center model: have lots of commodity stuff and scale it out. Hadoop was engineered exactly for such an architecture; rather than speed, it was optimized for sheer linear scale.

Over the past year, most of the major platform players have planted their table stakes with Hadoop. Not surprisingly, IT household names are seeking to somehow tame Hadoop and make it safe for the enterprise.

Up ' til now, anybody with armies of the best software engineers that Internet firms could buy could brute force their way to scale out humungous clusters and, if necessary, invent their own technology then share and harvest from the open source community at will. Hardly a suitable scenario for the enterprise mainstream, the common thread behind the diverse strategies of IBM, EMC, Microsoft, and Oracle toward Hadoop has been to, not surprisingly, make Hadoop more approachable.

What’s been conspicuously absent so far was a play from Big Optimized Storage. The conventional wisdom is that SAN or NAS are premium, architected systems whose costs might be prohibitive when you talk petabytes of data.

Similarly, so far there has been a different operating philosophy behind the first generation implementations from the NoSQL world that assumed that parts would fail, and that five nines service levels were overkill. And anyway, the design of Hadoop brute forced the solution: replicate to have three unique copies of the data distributed around the cluster, as hardware is cheap.

As Big Data gains traction in the enterprise, some of it will certainly fit this pattern of something being better than nothing, as the result is unique insights that would not otherwise be possible. For instance, if your running analysis of Facebook or Twitter goes down, it probably won’t take the business with it. But as enterprises adopt Hadoop—and as pioneers stretch Hadoop to new operational use cases such as what Facebook is doing with its messaging system—those concepts of mission-criticality are being revisited.

And so, ever since EMC announced last spring that its Greenplum unit would start supporting and bundling different versions of Hadoop, we’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop: When would EMC infuse its Big Data play with its core DNA, storage?

Today, EMC announced that its Isilon networked storage system was adding native support for Apache Hadoop’s HDFS file system. There were some interesting nuances to the rollout.

Big vendors feeling their way
It’s interesting to see how IT household names are cautiously navigating their way into unfamiliar territory. EMC becomes the latest, after Oracle and Microsoft, to calibrate their Hadoop strategy in public.

Oracle announced its Big Data appliance last fall before it lined up its Hadoop distribution. Microsoft ditched its Dryad project built around its HPC Server. Now EMC has recalibrated its Hadoop strategy; when it first unveiled its Hadoop strategy last spring, the spotlight was on the MapR proprietary alternatives to the HDFS file system of Apache Hadoop. It’s interesting that vendor initial announcements have either been vague, or have been tweaked as they’ve waded into the market. For EMC’s shift, more about that below.

For EMC, HDFS is the mainstream
MapR’s strategy (and IBM’s along with it, regarding GPFS) has prompted debate and concern in the Hadoop community about commercial vendors forking the technology. As we’ve ranted previously, Hadoop’s growth will be tied, not only to megaplatform vendors that support it, but the third party tools and solutions ecosystem that grows around it.

For such a thing to happen, ISVs and consulting firms need to have a common target to write against, and having forked versions of Hadoop won’t exactly grow large partner communities.

Regarding EMC, the original strategy was two Greenplum Hadoop editions: a Community Edition with a free Apache distro and an Enterprise Edition that bundled MapR, both under the Greenplum HD branding umbrella. At first blush, it looked like EMC was going to earn the bulk of its money from the proprietary side of the Hadoop business.

What’s significant is that the new announcement of Isilon support pertains on to the HDFS open source side. More to the point, EMC is rebranding and subtly repositioning its Greenplum Hadoop offerings: Greenplum HD is the Apache HDFS edition with the optional Isilon support, and Greenplum MR is the MapR version, which is niche targeted towards advanced Hadoop use cases that demand higher performance.

Coming atop recent announcements from Oracle and Microsoft that have come clearly out on the side of OEM’ing Apache rather than anything limited or proprietary, and this amounts to an unqualified endorsement of Apache Hadoop/HDFS as not only the formal, but also the de facto standard.

This reflects emerging conventional wisdom that the enterprise mainstream is leery about lock-in to anything that smells proprietary for technology where they still are in the learning curve. Other forks may emerge, but they will not be at the base file system layer. This leaves IBM and MapR pigeonholed—admittedly, there will be API compatibility, but clearly both are swimming upstream.

Central Storage is newest battleground
As noted earlier, Hadoop’s heritage has been the classic Internet data center scale-out model. The advantage is that, leveraging Hadoop’s highly linear scalability, organizations could expand their clusters quite easily by plucking more commodity server and disk. Pioneers or purists would scoff at the notion of an appliance approach because it was always simply scaling out inexpensive, commodity hardware, rather than paying premiums for big vendor boxes.

In blunt terms, the choice is whether you pay now or pay later. As mentioned before, do-it-yourself compute clusters require sweat equity—you need engineers who know how to design, deploy, and operate them. The flipside is that many, arguably most, corporate IT organizations either lack the skills or the capital. There are various solutions to what might otherwise appear a Hobson’s Choice:

• Go to a cloud service provider that has already created the infrastructure, such as what Microsoft is offering with its Hadoop-on-Azure services;
• Look for a happy, simpler medium such as Amazon’s Elastic MapReduce on its DynamoDB service;
• Subscribe to SaaS providers that offer Hadoop applications (e.g., social network analysis, smart grid as a service) as a service;
• Get a platform and have a systems integrator put it together for you (key to IBM’s BigInsights offering, and applicable to any SI that has a Hadoop practice)
• Go to an appliance or engineered systems approach that puts Hadoop and/or its subsystems in a box, such as with Oracle Big Data Appliance or EMC’s Greenplum DCA. The systems engineering is mostly done for you, but the increments for growing the system can be much larger than simply adding a few x86 servers here or there (Greenplum HD DCA can scale in groups of 4 server modules). Entry or expansion costs are not necessarily cheap, but then again, you have to balance capital cost against labor.
• Surrounding Hadoop infrastructure with solutions. This is not a mutually exclusive strategy; unless you’re Cloudera or Hortonworks, which make their business bundling and supporting the core Apache Hadoop platform, most of the household names will bundle frameworks, algorithms, and eventually solutions that in effect place Hadoop under the hood. For EMC, the strategy is their recent announcement of a Unified Analytics Platform (UAP) that provides collaborative development capabilities for Big Data applications. EMC is (or will be) hardly alone here.

With EMC’s new offering, the scale-up option tackles the next variable: storage. This is the natural progression of a market that will address many constituencies, and where there will be no single silver bullet that applies to all.

By: Louella Fernandes, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 2nd February 2012 Copyright Quocirca © 2012

Nuance is a company with a plethora of products that cover the gamut of voice recognition, document capture and print management. Nuance has largely grown through acquisition (about 50 in the last ten years) so it is probably better known by its product names which include established brands such as PaperPort (desktop productivity), OmniPage (OCR), Dragon Dictate (voice recognition), eCopy (document capture and workflow) and Equitrac (print management) – its most recent acquisition. Overall, Nuance’s 2011 revenue reached $1.318 billion in 2011 with 2012 sales expected to reach $1.6 billion.  Boosted by its eCopy and Equitrac acquisitions, its imaging division growth has been strong, revenue reaching $177m in 2011 and expected to exceed $200m in 2012.

At its first European analyst event in London, Nuance discussed its strategic priorities for 2012, which include integration of its scan and print products and expansion of mobile and cloud delivery platforms. Nuance’s goal is to become the “MFP software standard” through delivering integrated cross-platform document capture and print management products – eCopy and Equitrac. Today, both products are well established, and Equitrac is already widely used to control and monitor print usage and costs across many verticals, with a particularly strong presence in the legal market – Nuance estimates that, globally, over 3,000 law firms use Equitrac. Its strong MFP and printer partner alliances mean Equitrac has long been used by major printer and copier OEMs such as HP, Ricoh and Xerox to provide enhanced multivendor print management capabilities for tracking, monitoring and reporting on scan, copy and print usage to their managed print services (MPS) customers.

This broadens the already strong OEM relationships on the eCopy side, including Canon, Konica Minolta and others.  With Equitrac, eCopy and its desktop products, Nuance has business relationships with nearly all major MFP, printer and scanner manufacturers worldwide.

Capturing the MPS opportunity
Nuance sees MPS as a key driver for its growth in the coming year and views the Equitrac and Nuance document imaging solutions as important components of helping MPS providers to succeed. Indeed there is rapid adoption - Quocirca research shows that around 45% of large corporates now have some form of MPS as they seek to reduce the cost and complexity of operating previously unmanaged printer fleets, typically characterised by a patchwork of devices from different manufacturers, with different consumables, paper, supplier and service requirements. Few organisations have the tools to track and monitor usage leading to spiralling print costs – both financial and environmental. Security is also an issue as all too often documents are left in output trays exposed to prying eyes.

MPS addresses these issues through three major phases – assessment, optimisation and on-going continuous management. Nuance’s Equitrac products have a strong part to play in all phases, helping organisations to not only reduce print wastage through tracking and reporting, but also enhance security, promote user mobility and reduce environmental impact. Key to this is Equitrac’s “Follow-You” or pull-printing which releases documents only upon user authentication – through either user PIN or smart card authentication. The results are compelling - Liverpool John Moores University discussed how they had saved £100,000 and reduced page volumes by 4.5 million per year through implementing Equitrac.

Nuance is also looking to address the largely untapped opportunity for MPS in the SMB market, via the reseller channel. Many resellers lack the resources or skills to deliver their own MPS, and are looking for a low-cost approach based on 3rd party platforms. Nuance intends to participate in this market which is seeing the emergence of cloud-based MPS offerings from vendors such as HP and Xerox. To capitalize on the emergence of cloud-based technologies and to support its partners’ Managed Services initiatives, Nuance will continue to expand its product portfolio (print management, capture and OCR) from on-premise deployments to off-premise (cloud) models. This will provide a set of cloud-based print management, document capture and OCR technology services to partners who wish to include them as part of their own managed services offerings. 

With the likes of HP and Xerox already having established cloud MPS platforms, Quocirca believes that Nuance will need to get these solutions to market quickly, particularly if it wishes to target the emerging ecosystem of independent MPS providers who will be looking for multivendor supported cloud-based services.

Quocirca believes that Nuance has product breadth, technical resources and channel reach to create a compelling set of enterprise cloud services around its eCopy and Equitrac products. However, given that both eCopy and Equitrac platforms have been gained through acquisition, Nuance still has some work to integrate them.

Talking to printers?
Given its heritage in speech recognition consumer technology, Nuance is uniquely positioned to apply this technology to enhance the printer and MFP user experience. The printer industry is far from immune from IT consumerisation, which continues to influence user expectations in the workplace. Whilst employees are used to the convenience, elegance and usability of tablets and smartphones, MFPs, in comparison, are in danger of becoming the elephant in the room.

Whilst most people are familiar with how to press print or copy, few users bother navigating complex nested menus to access finishing options or scan features. Businesses may therefore miss opportunities to minimise paper wastage through using features as duplex or booklet printing instead of single side printing. 

One technology that could improve the use of MFPs is voice recognition. Nuance has long been a leader in this field, and quietly provides back-end voice recognition functionality for Apple’s Siri. Could we in the future be telling our printers to print and staple 5 copies of a document – or scan and document and email it to a colleague? Yes - according to Nuance, the technology is already here to make it possible. It remains to be seen whether hardware vendors will embrace this opportunity to bring printers and MFPs into the 21st century.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 2nd February 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

Good data management, analytics, and helping to shape the goals of the business are keys to transforming the enterprise through impactful enterprise architecture (EA). That was the theme, from different perspectives, presented by a series of plenary speakers this week at The Open Group Conference in San Francisco.

Jeanne Ross, Director and Principal Research Scientist at MIT's Center for Information System Research, opened Monday's plenary session, telling the attendees that the stakes are high for EA, which needs to show swift success in the new digital economy. Enterprise architects also now need to help their organizations better use new services and instill a "value cycle." [Disclosure: The Open Group is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Coming from the siloed past in IT, companies are now moving to business service-driven processes across various resources, Ross said. But they need to recognize the forces around consumption of such services, not just the implementation.

Making good data management a priority, a "single source of truth" is also at the heart of making EA valuable, said Ross. Ensuring the quality of data and the speed of data refresh will help enterprise architects rise in performance appreciation more than just about anything else, she said. Ross studies how firms develop competitive advantage through the implementation and reuse of digitized platforms.

She is also the co-author of three books: IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results, Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution, and IT Savvy: What Top Executives Must Know to Go from Pain to Gain.

I also interviewed Ross on enterprise transformation issues before the conference.

IT-enablement isn't enough, Ross said, because companies typically under-utilize new systems and applications. It's not that we can't build them, she said of systems, but that companies aren't using them to their potential. Architects need to consider this and then market and evangelize solutions.

And EAs need to be more involved with making quality data center stage in their companies. "You don't get good analytics with bad data," Ross said, "The secret to good EA is to put information in every person's hands so they can use data better." And that in turn will help transform the business and spur added innovation using IT systems and good architecture principles.

Most senior executives aren't very good at combining business and technology strategies, Ross said, and she outlined the architect's elevated role in helping their bosses deliver increased business value:

• Help senior execs clarify business goals
• Identify architectural capabilities that can be readily exploited
• Present options and their implications for business goals
• Build capabilities incrementally

She closed out, getting applause from the audience, by predicting, "Some day CIOs are going to report to the enterprise architect, because that's the way it ought to be."

Impressive cost reduction
The second plenary speaker, Celso Guiotoko, Corporate Vice President and CIO of Nissan Motor Co, Ltd., told how business value is at the top of IT principles for Nissan, information as an asset comes next, and then reducing complexity.

Using these principles, Nissan in 2005 developed "BEST" as an IT mid-term plan and significantly improved the efficiency of its information systems. BEST is an acronym for business alignment, EA, selective sourcing, and technology simplifications.

This was followed in 2009 with the development of the "Change" program, which provided the basis for further advances by changing people, technology, and "process." And, in 2011, the next IT mid-term plan "VITESSE" was launched, designed to bring direct profit to the company. VITESSE encompasses value, innovation, technology, simplification, and service excellence. Through the various initiatives, Nissan has reduced IT cost by over 40 percent, going from a cost per user of $1.09 to $0.63.

The transformed enterprise
Andy Mulholland, Global Chief Technology Officer and Corporate Vice President at Capgemini, focused on the transformed enterprise and cloud trends, as well as the effect of new devices and social networking. Forty million tablets and 70 million smartphones are having a huge impact on how workers and consumers expect to work and shop.

The "bring your own device" phenomenon is forcing a change in thinking for enterprises, Mulholland said, as two environments are developing—inside IT and outside IT. Typically back-end activities operate inside the firewall, while front-end people and activities operate outside the firewall, yet people nowadays want to be able to use smartphones and tablets for both personal and work tasks.

This has led to a situation in which workers are increasingly going outside IT to buy services. Mulholland quoted a Gartner prediction that up to 35 percent of IT expenditures will be outside the IT department by 2015. Other industry analysts like IDC have placed the figure higher.

Because of this, IT faces a huge “re-integration project” to bring together the inside and outside services in a rational way, Mulholland said, adding that the transformed enterprise needs to focus on the productivity of people and innovative business models.

I interviewed Mulholland a few weeks ago and we delved even deeper into the cloud duality issues now coming to the fore of enterprise technology issues and planning. I was also intrigued by a Wall Street Journal piece today on how the US faces a new tech boom. It was aligned with much of what Mulholland was saying.

The key to doing this “re-integration project,” according to Mulholland, is governance, and the industry really lacks a good cloud governance model, meaning that many businesses are already in trouble. However, enterprises shouldn't let that get in the way of progress. Mulholland advised, "If business wants something radically different from you, don't try to stop it. Try to understand it and take control of it."

Driving IT transformation
Lauren States, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Cloud Computing and Growth Initiatives, IBM, emphasized that transforming the enterprise requires a huge emphasis on analytics, and a successful integration of analytics and IT.

States drew on IBM's decades-long journey of constant transformation, relying on business process excellence, values-based culture, and IT-enablement. This has led to $1.5 billion in IT savings since 2005 as well as avoiding over $20 million in expenses over five years with a private analytics cloud, she said.

According to States, CMOs are overwhelmingly underprepared for the data explosion and recognize the need to invest in and integrate technology and analysis and consider analytics as business differentiators.

CEOs and CIOs are both highly focused on insights, clients, and people skills, States said, feeding into what she called the "new reality," the need to harvest and pass insights and build trusted relationships.

States' takeaway: We're at the beginning of a major change, much like the PC revolution three decades ago. The cloud's sweet spot now, she says, is in bringing new innovation and insights to marketing, sales and customer service.

No need to wait
Speaker Bill Rouse, executive director, Tennenbaum Institute at Georgia Tech, said that many enterprises wait too long to change, with the decision to transform dragging on until the damage is beyond repair. As evidence, he said that in the past 25 years, 1000 companies have dropped from the Fortune 500 list—showing enterprise transformation has high failure rate, and that waiting for the right time change is a risky business plan.

Moreover, for those enterprises seeking transformation, they need to look at the full ecosystem that a business operates in to effectively transform, says Rouse. Business ecosystems are co-creating high-value services, expanding transformation across supply chains, says Rouse. This is an important nee dimension, he added.

Using analytics better to support evidence-based decision making is transformative and should be a priority, says Rouse. And architecture-oriented thinking can be transformative in itself, he said.

Cyber security threats
On the topic of cyber security, plenary speaker Joseph Menn, cyber security correspondent for the Financial Times and author of Fatal System Error: The Hunt for the New Crime Lords Who are Bringing Down the Internet, made it clear that business as usual won't do.

Joe has covered security since 1999 for both the Financial Times and then before that, for the Los Angeles Times. Fatal System Error is his third book, he also wrote All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster. I also recently interviewed him.

"It's in no one's interest to tell us how bad it really is" when it comes to cyber crime and security, said Menn. And the Stuxnet affair is huge as a harbinger of things to come, he said.

As a result, more taxpayer money will be needed for effective government-level defenses against cyber attacks, he suggested. But government intervention won't do the job alone. Increasingly, corporations will need to play more than just defense on attacks, many of which come from Russia and China and from groups that blend state and criminal interests.

Counter attacks may be a strong defense when it comes to cyber risks, and US government may "turn a blind eye", says Menn. We may even see cyber crime bounty hunters that corporations hire on the QT to go after those that attack them, he said.

Meanwhile, IT groups and enterprise architects can play a bigger role. Knowing what you have helps you know when something has been taken, so improve tracking of assets, Menn told them. He also suggusted that companies keep their most critical data offline, and protect their intellectual property by burying it in and among fake data.

Allen Brown, President and CEO of The Open Group, said that more than 400 corporations are now members of The Open Group, showing strong growth over past 12 years since its founding. TOGAF 9 certification rates growing rapidly worldwide, he said.

FACE standard
In other news from The Open Group on Monday, The Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) Consortium, announced the official release of the FACE Technical Standard, which provides guidelines for creating a common operating environment to support applications across multiple Department of Defense avionics systems. See my interview on FACE as it was just getting under way.

The standard is designed to enhance the U.S. military aviation community’s ability to address issues of limited software reuse and accelerate and enhance warfighter capabilities, as well as enabling the community to take advantage of new technologies more rapidly and affordably.The FACE technical standard will enable developers to create and deploy a wide catalog of applications for use across the spectrum of military aviation systems through a common operating environment. Product development efforts by industry and procurements by government customer organizations are already underway based on the FACE standard.

“The introduction of the FACE Technical Standard is an important milestone in extending interoperability among the armed forces and creating a common platform for avionics that enables systems to work together across each of the branches of the U.S. military,” said Brown.

And on Tuesday, The Open Group announced the arrival of ArchiMate 2.0, the latest version of the organization's open and independent modeling language for enterprise architecture. This version is more tightly aligned to TOGAF, so enterprise architects using the language can improve the way key business and IT stakeholders collaborate and adapt to change.

ArchiMate 2.0 improves collaboration through clearer understanding across multiple functions, including business executives, enterprise architects, systems analysts, software engineers, business process consultants and infrastructure engineers, according to the release. The new standard enables the creation of fully integrated models of an organization's Enterprise Architecture, the motivation behind it, and the programs, projects and migration paths to implement it.

"By combining TOGAF and ArchiMate, TOGAF becomes more easy to apply in any organization," said Harmen van den Berg, partner and co-founder at BiZZdesign. "Having a reference model makes them both easier to apply in any industry or vertical."

He added: "Architects like to make models, and this now helps them to use those models to create change in the organization, for something that means more to the business."

Making the EA function a chief weapon of enterprise transformation in a time of roiling change and complexity, that's the main message from the conference. No time to wait.

By: Mark McGregor, Research Director, Bloor Research Posted: 31st January 2012 Copyright Bloor Research © 2012

In my recent article "The Game of Process Improvement", I referred to a book called "Innovation Games". The book is packed with details on how any of us can leverage Innovation Games to gain greater insight into our customers and users. Something that is critical to the success of BPM and Process projects, but also can be applied to the vendors of these, and other products too. Last week I spend some time talking with Luke, the author, about the book, the games and his company.

When it comes to the use of games in business I am a firm believer that they should enable people to learn. As I mentioned in my previous article, we learn more by play than by analysis. Luke, though, is concerned about making sure people understand that his games are not seen as simply a learning tool, but a business tool directed towards delivering specific outcomes. Of course he still believes that they can and should be fun!

Luke has undertaken a lot of research into the linkages between the brain and productivity. In his words: "Productivity Games are not simply 'more fun' - they are literally more effective. This is due to the fact that the concept of play is deeply integrated into human beings' mental development."

"Studies tell us that there are parts of the brain that we do not access when we are simply discussing our views, or trying to think through a complicated situation. However, when we play a well structured game with other interested players, our actions, interactions with other players, and explanations of our behaviour can provide a better, more comprehensive view of how and why we make certain decisions."

Innovation Games, although a relatively young company, boasts an extremely impressive customer list. Companies, including Adobe, SAP, Aladdin, Wyse, Google and Qualcomm, have all leveraged Innovation Games to to improve holistic design thinking, discover new business opportunities, drive strategy and product road map decisions, improve the effectiveness of sales and service organisations, fine tune marketing messages, and create more intimate, durable relationships with customers.

One of the challenges that Luke has faced over the years is the stigma associated with the idea of using games in business. In part this is due to the mistaken understanding that games do not equate to work. This has led to him and others using the term "serious games", although he (and I) prefer the term that he also uses - "Productivity Games" - to try and overcome these obstacles.

I agree totally with Luke that the objective has to be to deliver objective, useable business outcomes, and Innovation Games amply delivers on this front. I also come from the perspective that, for effective change to take hold, then people need not just outcomes but the learning. The ability to come to their own "Aha!" or "Light Bulb" moment. So for me it is also about going back and seeing how people learn most effectively and, as we say, this is through structured play.

What I can see is that there is a need for people to be able to understand how to differentiate between unstructured and structured play. I can also see that even the most boring of analysis tasks can be made to be more fun through games. So perhaps we could use terms like "Strategy Games" or "Objective Gaming" to make it clear that in board game terms it is more like 'Risk' or 'Diplomacy' rather than 'Ludo' or 'Snakes & Ladders' - e.g. it is a game, should be fun, but is directed toward a targeted outcome. As mentioned in the previous article, there are many business leaders who have successfully grown businesses using their love of, and skill at, the game of chess to succeed.

Truly successful games need to deliver both concrete outcomes and learning. The outcomes ensure that you are making good use of your time and getting business value, while the learning ensures that your people continue to grow and develop. The great thing about the Innovation Games concept, as developed and promoted by Luke, is that it delivers on both counts. One only has to take a look in more depth at the success stories to see how much has been saved/made/changed to understand that the results are definitely there. If you take the time to talk with people who have been involved in those projects, you will hear them enthuse about learning things that they did not even realise were important.

Next month, during my trip to California, I hope to meet with Luke and learn first hand more about the way he and the team leverage Innovation games.

By: Simon Holloway, Practice Leader - Process Management & RFID, Bloor Research Posted: 27th January 2012 Copyright Bloor Research © 2012

When I first wrote the RFID market overview, one of the key things I identified was that RFID hardware couldn't exist without RFID middleware and applications, and neither could RFID middleware and applications exist without RFID hardware. What has also become clear is that no longer are organisations just looking at passive or active tags, what they want is for their RFID middleware and applications to be able to work with a mix of different tags, both active and passive, and even at different frequencies. It is a case of choosing the right horse for the course!

On January 12th, Zebra announced they have entered into a "cooperative relationship and licensing agreement" with Checkpoint Systems. This relationship brings together Zebra's active location solutions with the passive RFID, auto-ID, Wi-Fi and sensor capabilities of Checkpoint division OATSystems' OATxpress middleware. The objective is to provide increased visibility of assets across an enterprise. The agreement is a non-exclusive contract and provides Zebra with an OEM software license for OATxpress

A reminder for those of you who are not sure about the two organisations involved. Zebra is one of the leading suppliers of bar code, receipt, card, kiosk and RFID printers and supplies, as well as real-time location solutions. Over the last year or so they have also developed a real-time location solution (RTLS), WhereNet ISO/IEC 24730-2. This provides robust location performance both indoors and outdoors with a long tag to sensor range. WhereLAN III RTLS tag delivers 1 meter locating accuracy, lower deployment and ownership costs, lower power consumption, and 802.11 b/g Wi-Fi backhaul.

Checkpoint Systems is a leader in shrink management, merchandise visibility, apparel labeling and asset tracking solutions. Checkpoint has some 40 years of experience of RF technology and shrink management requirements. In 2008, Checkpoint Systems acquired one of the leading RFID middleware companies, OATSystems (see OATSystems acquired by Checkpoint). This strengthened their RF capability and RFID customer base and has allowed OATSystems, as a division of Checkpoint, to further develop supply chain, manufacturing and inventory management applications on top of their RFID middleware for a number of verticals ranging from Apparel to Aerospace.

So what we have with this agreement is that Zebra can now offer Checkpoint's OATxpress device and data management capabilities in conjunction with their WhereNet RTLS solution. This makes it easier for a potential customer to purchase a complete solution from one point. From Checkpoint's viewpoint it gives access to Zebra customers and to the Zebra partner network thus providing further global access. From Zebra's viewpoint it can be summed up by a quote from Phil Gerskovich, senior vice president, new growth platforms at Zebra Technologies, "The addition of OAT's passive RFID and other auto-ID technologies capabilities will enable Zebra to play a larger and more meaningful role in helping organizations to make smarter decisions in managing their operations." Zebra has stated that they will announce details around its first product with the capability to implement applications that combine both active and passive RFID in the coming months, so watch this space!

In my view this relationship makes perfect sense to everyone and, most importantly, to potential and existing customers of Zebra and Checkpoint Systems.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 24th January 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

Scribe Software, a customer relationship management (CRM) data integration provider, will launch next week Scribe Online Synchronization Services (SYS), the second major service delivered on the Scribe Online cloud integration platform.

According to the Manchester, NH-based company, Scribe Online provides a cloud-based alternative to integration middleware, and simplifies the integration experience without sacrificing performance or functionality. The goal is to allow companies to reap the benefits of integrated CRM data from a variety of sources and technologies in days, rather than months.

The timing is more than pretty good because CRM as a category is expanding, driven by businesses' recognition that rich data on customers (and partners) is essential for better productivity, and for leveraging cloud-enabled business innovation outside the company.

Many companies I speak with are looking to pull appropriate and relevant data in near real-time from many internal systems of record to augment the full picture of customers. They are looking to their CRM systems as the meta data repository of such integrated views. And now they want to bring in more data from more sources, including those outside their four walls.

And, of course, the power of knowing the most about customers—and making the analysis from such data widely available to business units and functions across the enterprise—can make or break a company. Across the full business cycle, relevant and insightful data on customers drives success, from product development to effective marketing, to help desk and support, to entering new markets.

Scribe then, has developed its cloud offerings, built on Microsoft Azure and released last year, to make the instantiation of CRM data from as many sources as makes sense a function of the cloud, as well as on-premises. Such a hybrid approach to data integration makes even more sense than a hybrid approach to IT infrastructure services, if you ask me. You really need to be in the cloud to leverage the hybrid data integration benefits.

Now, Scribe has made it easier to leverage that cloud by offering synchronization services for CRM data integration a drag-and-drop affair that many business users can accomplish. Furthermore, Scribe is releasing SPARK, a developer program to help foster a community effort around making more connections to more types of data available to more synchronization efforts.

“Synchronization Services builds on our commitment to deliver superior CRM integration to customers and partners in the cloud. SYS fills a void in the market for an integration tool that is affordable and easy to use,” said Lou Guercia, president and CEO of Scribe. “Until now, integration products have been either too basic or too complex.”

Developer program
Scribe, with the SPARK Solution Developer Program, is targeting software-as-a-service (SaaS) providers, channel partners, systems integrators, VARS, and other business technology consultants. This means that while enterprise IT departments are gearing up for hybrid cloud-based CRM integrations, the community of ISVs and VARs needs to move more quickly, to innovate and expand into new models.

The SPARK Solution Developer Program is designed to help solution providers quickly build data integration capabilities between their solutions and CRM, as well as any other application or endpoint on Scribe Online. This will fit very well, too, into the Salesforce.com ecosystem, and the Microsoft Dynamics one, as well.

Scribe expects that partner networks will share and extend customer data—and value-added services on top of that joined and integrated data—for a variety of additional business services, said Guercia. Integrated and automated marketing services providers like HubSpot, Marketo, and Eloqua, certainly come to mind, too.

“CRM is no longer just a contact management system. It’s a critical revenue enabler for the business. Companies that integrate customer data from all areas of the business benefit with increased sales and satisfied customers,” said Roger Hodskins, vice president of strategic alliances at Scribe.

Using Scribe's latest offering, SaaS independent software vendors (ISVs) who offer integration to more than one CRM vendor can extend their presence in multiple CRM markets. As customers expand the scope of CRM in their businesses, integration can readily incorporate the SaaS ISVs’ offerings with connections both to CRM and to other complementary applications, said Scribe.

For more information on Scribe SYS, sign up for live weekly webinars, or to watch a four-minute demo video at scribesoft.com/online. Scribe Online SYS is available, too, free for 15 days at scribesoft.com/Free-Trials.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 23rd January 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

Advanced and pervasive virtualization and cloud computing trends are driving the need for a better, holistic approach to IT support and remediation.

And while the technology to support and fix virtualized environments is essential, it’s the people, skills, and knowledge to manage these systems that provide the most decisive determinants of ongoing performance success.

In a special BriefingsDirect sponsored podcast, created from a recent HP Expert Chat discussion on best practices for VMware environment support, HP experts explain how they have made the service and support of global virtualization market leader VMware a top priority.

For example, Cindy Manderson, Technical Solutions Consultant for Complex Problem Resolution and Quality for VMware Products at HP, provides case studies for how managed escalation and multi-vendor support around the globe can reduce downtime by 70 percent, with large ROI benefits as well.

Other HP experts in the discussion include Pat Lampert, Critical Service Senior Technical Account Manager and Team Leader, as well as Sumithra Reddy, HP Virtualization Engineer. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: HP and VMware are both sponsors of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: Virtualization isn’t just server-by-server, but really impacts the entire data center. You need to think about it more holistically, particularly in regard to things like security, performance and how your brands and businesses are perceived across the globe. Many of the companies that I deal with day in and day out are up at 80 percent and even 90 percent virtualized.

When they think about virtualization, they go beyond just server virtualization. It’s really now looking at storage, applications, networks and even the end-user desktop experience, or desktop as a service (VDI).

Successful virtualization is no longer just about servers, it’s about managing complexity when you get beyond the 20 percent or 30 percent level and expand into converged infrastructure virtualization without failures.

So how to take advantage of the best things about virtualization? Part of that means allowing your IT team to have access to other experienced support teams, from HP and VMware, around the world, 24x7, to help keep systems up and running. Such support also allows your IT team to progress, to learn as they go, and to be able to take advantage of more virtualization benefits over time.

So how do you go about attaining such benefits? How do you keep the positive side of virtualization on track? And how do you put in place an insurance policy around service and support?

Manderson: We have several different packages. Our highest level is the mission-critical. In this particular process, you're assigned a team that are across the technology that you have in your environment. But you also get a set of folks who would actually look at not just the reactive support and even some of the proactive, but how actually your entire business is running according to the ITIL standard.

That is coupled with keeping you up and running, and we also can work with you on a type that would be best suited for your environment.

Our critical and independent support includes onsite resources from HP that also include a lot of proactive support. In addition, they're more focused on specific management, but that would be more of an ITSM technology. We can look at that for you.

... We also have the hardware and software support. One of the cool things we have with our hardware support is support automation, our Insight for remote support. That can notify HP that you're having a disk drive failure. Or we will call you and say that we know that disk drive is failing, or something on a buffer server and storage is about to.

You can even take that a step further to look inside at the Windows operating system. We're hardware agnostic on that operating system. We don't care about the vendor—and I believe we are looking at expanding that automation to other operating systems. We have installation and startup services that we can actually go out and set up and configure the hardware and software at a site.

So we definitely integrate across all the multi-vendor services. We run the gamut between all the x86 operating systems, as well as our proprietary operating systems, our servers and storage. Again, we're no stranger to multi-vendor support and keeping the entire environment up and running.

... One of our most creative services would be Proactive Select, a core product series of credits. You can use these credits for maybe planning on migration and upgrade. You can say you need some consulting time. You can use these credits and work with upgrade and migration. You may need some performance or you may need some type of environmental assessment, and these credits can be used for that.

Gardner: When people do employ these services, how do they measure what the payoff is, the value of these services?

Manderson: In 2010, IDC did a study. They went out and looked at the methodology, and this is out on our website. They saw that the customers who have the mission-critical services, reduce their downtime by over 70 percent, and increase their return on investment (ROI) quite high, over 400 percent. The main benefit was in problem management as well as help desk calls, because these were alleviated due to the proactive nature, a lot of looking at the entire environment, and looking at the business processes.

So take a look at the study. It shows IDC's methodology. So looking at things proactively and these support processes can certainly help you reduce that downtime.

... I've been in the multi-vendor space for many, many years—from applications to operating systems—all with HP.

In 2002, when VMware came on the scene, HP actually became alliance partners with them. In 2003, we became a reseller, and thus began our support partnership with them. It would only extend recent in 2005, we also became an OEM. We have thousands of trained and certified Microsoft engineers and Linux professionals, too.

But we have the largest number of VMware-certified professionals. We also have the largest global VMware off-site training center. So HP also does education on these technologies as well. We’ve trained over 20,000 students in the VMware space alone.

And we have had this very strong collaboration with VMware for many years and have support teams around the globe. In addition, we also offer the same level of training that VMware support engineers do. We actually go to their facilities and train right alongside them, too.

We further do this training virtually. The training is then recorded and made available on demand for reference, for folks who are not able to attend a scheduled course. There's definitely a very strong partnership, and as you see from our history with the other vendors as well as VMware, we are no strangers to multi-vendor support.

With all of the VMware products that HP sells, we do provide support across them all. It runs the gamut from the vSphere operating system that will install on the x86 server, through the enterprise management to the vCenter, and virtual desktop infrastructure products like VMware ThinApp. We also support the converter product getting into vCloud Director.

In addition to that, we have the ability to access our peers on the other teams across HP hardware support. This includes servers and storage, and our networking chain. We are quickly able to collaborate with them and pull together a virtual team in to focus on the customer's whole environment, to provide a one-stop shop.

Additionally, you saw that we’ve been in this multi-vendor support business for so many years, with many experts across the other technologies, such as Microsoft and Linux. Of course, the virtual machines (VMs) are running these operating systems. So if the contract is also with them, we can easily pull them in to help us work an end-to-end solution and support it.

Gardner: Let’s think about what happens when there are different levels of support at work. How does that shake-out?

Manderson: We're in a reactive support business. If the customer has a problem, they can either call in at their local region telephone number—whether they are in America, Europe, or Asia Pacific. There are different phone numbers for them to call.

They can also log in via the web, and they'll get to our next developer Level 1 engineer. They're a great organization and have solved over 85 percent of their cases.

If they have issues where they have to escalate, first they will be collaborating with us. We also have an online chat tool, where we are all in a virtual room, the Level 1 engineers, Level 2 engineers, etc. So we’ll be consulting and collaborating with them before they even get to a point of escalation.

If the case does end up needing escalation, chances are they're already collaborating with the first person, and will then end up taking the case. That saves a lot of information transfer, as far as what type of server you have, what’s the firmware, what build level, and what’s the problem there, etc.

Once it reaches Level 2 support, as far as we can continue to collaborate, we can reach our teammates and the hardware teams, too, so we can look at the server and make sure that the environment is what we need it to be. If we can't resolve it, we can also go to Level 3 with VMware at an offline service-partner level.

We have a great relationship with the folks that we work alongside with and would escalate calls to at VMware. We’re obviously not going into Level 1 at VMware because we’ve already done all that work, and we are a service partner. They'll go right up to our peers over at VMware and then we work together, while always owning the solution that we provide back to the customer.

Another part of our infrastructure-as-a-support-organization is that we have a single customer database. I can give an example. A call came into our Level 1 French engineer. When this call came in, for the European folks, it was already the end of their day, and the French engineer could not speak English. It was a critical down, their VMs were offline.

So we worked in a virtual room and they talked to us, and brought the case to us here in America’s time zone. We worked with this case and another tool called HP Virtual Room, where we could actually all look at the customers' desktops in real time. They happened to have EVA storage, and we quickly got an EVA engineer engaged. Of course, we had to find a resource in the Americas because the European folks had already left. So we're all looking in real-time at the customer’s environment and found out that they had locked the storage.

The EVA engineer helped to get back online, while we all watched and the French engineer was translating in French for the customer in order to get it all resolved. We got it back online, and the customers were ready to go home.

We gave instructions on getting log files and we placed a call for follow-up for the daytime hours in Europe the next day. So our counterparts in European support teams picked that up and worked with the customers to resolution, to analyze exactly what happened and prevent it in the future.

We have another process in HP that can actually go with top organizations, our escalation manager process. I was lead source for a particular case where we had a field team assisting a customer deploying a virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) design. They had a third-party VDI vendor. They had HP hardware, servers, and virtual connects. They had our storage, and we didn’t quite know where the bottleneck was. They were having performance issues by trying to have this VDI at two different locations with the hardware at one site.

The escalation manager was able to get the local office to borrow equipment, and then try to get performance and network traces. They had the Engineering Problem Management Resource (EPMR) lab in Houston trying to duplicate the problems.

Our escalation manager was able to drive the issue to completion across not only the solution standards, but the local office, to owning the actual escalation with all the action items to keep this all on track. We knew where we were going to go. That was about a six-month case, but we did finally find was that the customer was on the technological edge, and the "pipe" to have that performance just did not exist.

Pat Lampert is a technical account manager and does site visits. The technical account managers do go out on site. So we’re aware of the environment. We have the information of your environment documented into the database. When you call, we’re not saying, "Now what kind of server is this? What’s the firmware?" We know this because we already have it documented. We could be calling them to say, "Server 3 is running a little off." We already know which VMware version this is on, because we have that information.

And because we have that, we can also offer proactive advice. We can know that there's a new firmware update, or VMware just came out with a new build, and we have a place where you can go find the latest that's specific to your environment. So this helps to reduce further incidents, because we can be more proactive to help you maintain your business.

Gardner: What are some of the the most frequent questions you receive from the field?

Reddy: I'll address two questions that are frequently showing up. One is, what is the difference between the VMware ESXi image and an HP ESXi image?

Basically, HP takes the same ESXi image that VMware provides to the customers. It then adds HP thin components for hardware management, and it also adds any latest fibre channel and network drivers. Once it's tested and certified, it's available for download both from HP and VMware websites.

And one of the major difference between the two images is that VMware image is disk installable only, whereas HP image can be installed on a disk, USB key, or a SD card.

The other question we're getting nowadays is how to upgrade from VCA4 to VCA5. As with any major upgrades, planning helps. The first thing I would do is understand the difference between ESX 4 and ESX 5, because starting with ESX 5, we have no service console. So we need to understand what the architectural differences are.

Also learn about the new licensing policies. Then, use the System Analyzer that VMware provides to evaluate the current environments, and download, check, and complete the checklist. Once this is done, hopefully the upgrade will go smoothly.

Lampert: Another question that has come up from customers has to do with the added value of getting support directly from HP. It was partly addressed during the presentation we just gave. First of all, VMware does have a fine support organization. I have a couple of friends who work in VMware Support, and they do a good job of supporting their product.

HP, in addition to a similar level of expertise in the product, also offers our expertise in HP hardware, especially if you have systems based on HP Blades. The infrastructure behind that often is tied very closely to the performance and availability of your ESX host. So when you call us, you will have not only someone who is very familiar with the VMware product, but also is familiar with the HP hardware and able to pull in the proper resourced results, problems you might encounter with running vSphere on HP hardware especially.

In addition to that, we have a partnership agreement with VMware, and when you call in for support through HP, you're getting that same level of service when we have to go to VMware to get answers to questions or fixes.

One other question that has come up is about our lab ability to reproduce problems. We have two global labs, one in India and one in the United States. We have several static vSphere cluster configurations with a number of different types of servers already in those configurations, and the ability, when needed, to add specific models, if there is a problem that’s specific to a particular Blade or rack-mounted server model, or a particular card or something like that. So we're quite able to reproduce most problems that come in. We even have some Dell and IBM equipment in our lab also.

Gardner: What other issues are users grappling with?

Reddy: One question I can answer is how to troubleshoot server crashes. When something goes wrong in ESX, we call it the "Purple Screen of Death." Often, these are results of hardware failure, but we still need to rule out the software. So we collect all the logs, and look at it to see if it's a software issue. If it's not a software issue, then we engage the hardware team to see how we can get to the root cause and fix the issue.

Lampert: To dovetail with Sumithra’s comment there, one of the questions I get frequently is what to do if you don’t have a dump. Say the host hangs, and that seems to be almost more common than the Purple Screen of Death. Some customers are't aware that through HP’s Integrated Lights-Out Management, there is the ability to generate a non-maskable interrupt (NMI) just by pressing a button, and by saving a certain environment variable ahead of time in your ESX host.

There is a KB article on this, by the way, if you just search on NMI and core dumping in VMware. But with that setup, you can force a dump while a system is in a hung state, and that will assist us usually in troubleshooting and isolating what caused the hang, whether it be hardware or a problem with the ESX host software.

One question that came up ahead of time is what HP suggests as far as getting a handle on our inventory of VMs? I happened to be involved in field testing some new tools from HP that will be available in January and February regarding vSphere.

One of them is a Holistic Blade and Firmware Analysis that takes into account the VMware environment on our Blade systems which we are working on having ready soon. We have just completed field tests.

And the second is a really nifty Inventory Report HP has just put together. We're just completing field tests on that now. It will be available soon. Basically, we install a small Perl script in the customer environment on any machine that has access to the vCenter host and has a vSphere CLI installed.

This Perl Script crawls through the VMware environment and builds an XML file, which we then feed into a report generator here at HP. This can be used for us to gather information on customers, so we have ahead of time a clear picture of the environment. But also it will be sold as a service to customers.

The report is really quite nice, with all sorts of charts and showing availability of machines and availability of memory and also disk space. It's a very nice report.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript or download a copy.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 20th January 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

The Open Group has announced this week the availability of two new industry standards to integrate fundamental elements of service oriented architecture (SOA) and cloud computing into a solution for enterprise architecture (EA). The new standards are: SOA Reference Architecture (SOA RA) and the Service-Oriented Cloud Computing Infrastructure Framework (SOCCI).

The Open Group has released updates to The Open Group Service Integration Maturity Model (OSIMM), which has now been ratified as an ISO and IEC (ISO/IEC 166880) International Standard. OSIMM gives organizations a common model for developing a roadmap for achieving the right level of service adoption to meet business objectives. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

SOA RA is a blueprint for creating and evaluating SOA solutions, while SOCCI is the first Open Group cloud standard that outlines the concepts and architectural building blocks necessary for infrastructures to support SOA and cloud initiatives.

"In today's global competitive marketplace it is imperative that business and IT drivers are aligned," said Chris Harding, Director for Interoperability, The Open Group. "Each of the three standards is vendor-neutral and helps an organization of any size to design and implement the proper SOA and cloud solutions for its business objectives."

SOA RA is an industry standard reference architecture for the development of SOA solutions. Utilizing the SOA RA Standard, enterprise architects will have a common language and approach for creating SOA solutions that meet different organizational needs and bridge the gap between business and IT.

SOCCI is the industry's first cloud standard for enterprises that wish to provide infrastructure as a service in the cloud and SOA. Developed by The Open Group SOA and Cloud Work Groups, SOCCI is the realization of an enabling framework of service-oriented components for infrastructure to be provided as a service in SOA solutions and the cloud.

The standard details a set of common SOCCI elements and management building blocks for organizations to consider and identifies the synergies that can be realized through cohesive application of SOA and cloud-based principles. Using SOCCI, organizations can incorporate cloud-based resources and services into their infrastructure for increased agility and scale, and lower maintenance costs.

Proven best practices
OSIMM leverages proven best practices to allow consultants and IT practitioners to assess an organization's readiness and maturity level for adopting services in SOA solutions. By aligning business goals and assessing associated SOA services IT practitioners can create a detailed roadmap for integrating services for SOA and cloud computing solutions into enterprises. With the recent ratification of OSIMM 2.0 by ISO and IEC, organizations worldwide have an extensible framework for understanding the value of implementing a service model, as well as a comprehensive guide for achieving their desired level of service maturity.

The SOA RA technical standard, SOCCI framework, and OSIMM 2.0 International standard are available for download from The Open Group Bookstore. These new standards can also be viewed online at: SOA Reference Architecture, Service-oriented Cloud Computing Infrastructure, Open Group Service Integration Maturity Model.

In addition to the standards news, The Open Group on Jan. 30 will begin its San Francisco conference to focus on the role played by IT and EA within enterprise transformation. Among the topics to be explored:

• The differences between EA and enterprise transformation, and how they relate to one another
• The use of EA to facilitate enterprise transformation
• How EA can be used to create a foundation for enterprise transformation that the board and business-line managers can understand and use to their advantage
• How EA facilitates transformation within IT, and how does such transformation support the transformation of the enterprise as whole
• How EA can help the enterprise successfully adapt to "disruptive technologies" like cloud computing and ubiquitous mobile access.

Among the speakers at the conference will be Andy Mulholland, the Global Chief Technology Officer and Corporate Vice President at Capgemini. In 2009, Andy was voted one of the top 25 most influential CTOs in the world by InfoWorld. And in 2010, his CTO Blog was voted best blog for business managers and CIOs for the third year running by Computer Weekly.

Andy recently participated in a BriefingsDirect podcast, in which he spoke about an upcoming Capgemini whitepaper, which draws distinctions between what cloud means to IT, and what it means to business -- while examining the complex dual relationship between the two.

Also, Jeanne Ross, Director and Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Center for Information Systems Research. Jeanne studies how firms develop competitive advantage through the implementation and reuse of digitized platforms.

Jeanne recently spoke with me about how adoption of EA leads to greater efficiencies and better business agility and explained how enterprise architects have helped lead the way to successful business transformations.

Also speaking is Joseph Menn, Cyber Security Correspondent for the Financial Times and author of Fatal System Error: The Hunt for the New Crime Lords Who are Bringing Down the Internet.

Joe has covered security since 1999 for both the Financial Times and then before that, for the Los Angeles Times. Fatal System Error is his third book, he also wrote All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster.

As a lead-in to his Open Group presentation, entitled "What You're Up Against: Mobsters, Nation-States, and Blurry Lines," Joe recently joined BriefingsDirect to explore the current cyber-crime landscape, the underground cyber-gang movement, and the motive behind governments collaborating with organized crime in cyber space.

Registration remains open for The Open Group Conference in San Francisco, beginning Jan. 30.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 18th January 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

This BriefingsDirect thought leadership interview comes in conjunction with The Open Group Conference this month in San Francisco.

The conference will focus on how IT and enterprise architecture support enterprise transformation. Speakers in conference events will also explore the latest in service oriented architecture (SOA), cloud computing, and security.

We’re now joined by one of the main speakers, Andy Mulholland, the Global Chief Technology Officer and Corporate Vice President at Capgemini. In 2009, Andy was voted one of the top 25 most influential CTOs in the world by InfoWorld. And in 2010, his CTO Blog was voted best blog for business managers and CIOs for the third year running by Computer Weekly.

Capgemini is about to publish a white paper on cloud computing. It draws distinctions between what cloud means to IT, and what it means to business—while examining the complex dual relationship between the two.

As a lead-in to his Open Group conference presentation on the transformed enterprise, Andy draws on the paper and further drills down on one of the decade’s hottest technology and business trends, cloud computing, and how it impacts business and IT. The interview is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: Why do business people think they have a revolution on their hands, while IT people look cloud computing as an evolution of infrastructure efficiency?

Mulholland: We define the role of IT and give it the responsibility and the accountability in the business in a way that is quite strongly related to internal practice. It’s all about how we manage the company’s transactions, how we reduce the cost, how we automate business process, and generally try to make our company a more efficient internal operator.

When you look at cloud computing through that set of lenses, you’re going to see ... the technologies from cloud computing, principally virtualization, [as] ways to improve how you deliver the current server-centric, application-centric environment.

However, business people ... reflect on it in terms of the change in society and the business world, which we all ought to recognize because that is our world, around the way we choose what we buy, how we choose to do business with people, how we search more, and how we’ve even changed that attitude.

There's a whole list of things that we simply just don’t do anymore because we’ve changed the way we choose to buy a book, the way we choose and listen to music and lots of other things.

So we see this as a revolution in the market or, more particularly, a revolution in how cloud can serve in the market, because everybody uses some form of technology.

So then the question is not the role of the IT department and the enterprise—it’s the role technology should be playing in their extended enterprise in doing business.

Gardner: What do we need to start doing differently?

Mulholland: Let’s go to a conversation this morning with a client. It’s always interesting to touch reality. This particular client is looking at the front end of a complex ecosystem around travel, and was asked this standard question by our account director: Do you have a business case for the work we’re discussing?

The reply from the CEO is very interesting. He fixed him with a very cold glare and he said, "If you were able to have 20 percent more billable hours without increasing your cost structure, would you be bothered to even think about the business case?"

The answer in that particular case was they were talking about 10,000 more travel instances or more a year—with no increase in their cost structure. In other words, their whole idea was there was nothing to do with cost in it. Their argument was in revenue increase, market share increase, and they thought that they would make better margins, because it would actually decrease their cost base or spread it more widely.

That's the whole purpose of this revolution and that's the purpose the business schools are always pushing, when they talk about innovative business models. It means innovate your business model to look at the market again from the perspective of getting into new markets, getting increased revenue, and maybe designing things that make more money.

We're always hooked on this idea that we’ve used technology very successfully internally, but now we should be asking the question about how we’re using technology externally when the population as a whole uses that as their primary method of deciding what they’re going to buy, how they’re going to buy it, when they’re going to buy it, and lots of other questions.

... A popular book recently has been The Power of Pull, and the idea is that we’re really seeing a decentralization of the front office in order to respond to and follow the market and the opportunities and the events in very different ways.

The Power of Pull says that I do what my market is asking me and I design business process or capabilities to be rapidly orchestrated through the front office around where things want to go, and I have linkage points, application programming interface (API) points, where I take anything significant and transfer it back.

But the real challenge is—and it was put to me today in the client discussion—that their business was designed around 1970 computer systems, augmented slowly around that, and they still felt that. Today, their market and their expectations of the industry that they're in were that they would be designed around the way people were using their products and services and the events and that they had to make that change.

To do that, they're transformed in the organization, and that's where we start to spot the difference. We start to spot the idea that your own staff, your customers, and other suppliers are all working externally in information, process, and services accessible to all on an Internet market or architecture.

So when we talk about business architecture, it’s as relevant today as it ever was in terms of interpreting a business.

But when we start talking about architecture, The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF) is a set of methodologies on the IT side—the closed-coupled state for a designed set of principles to client-server type systems. In this new model, when we talk about clouds, mobility, and people traveling around and connecting by wireless, etc., we have a stateless loosely coupled environment.

The whole purpose of The Open Group is, in fact, to help devise new ways for being able to architect methods to deliver that. That's what stands behind the phrase, "a transformed enterprise."

... If we go back to the basic mission of The Open Group, which is boundarylessness of this information flow, the boundary has previously been defined by a computer system updating another computer system in another company around traditional IT type procedural business flow.

Now, we’re talking about the idea that the information flow is around an ecosystem in an unstructured way. Not a structured file-to-file type transfer, not a structured architecture of who does what, when, and how, but the whole change model in this is unstructured.

Gardner: It's important to point out here, Andy, that the stakes are relatively high. Who in the organization can be the change agent that can make that leap between the duality view of cloud that IT has, and these business opportunists?

Mulholland: The CEOs are quite noticeably reading the right articles, hearing the right information from business schools, etc., and they're getting this picture that they're going to have new business models and new capabilities.

So the drive end is not hard. The problem that is usually encountered is that the IT department’s definition and role interferes with them being able to play the role they want.

What we're actually looking for is the idea that IT, as we define it today, is some place else. You have to accept that it exists, it will exist, and it’s hugely important. So please don’t take those principles and try to apply them outside.

The real question here is when you find those people who are doing the work outside—and I've yet to find any company where it hasn’t been the case—and the question should be how can we actually encourage and manage that innovation sensibly and successfully?

What I mean by that is that if everybody goes off and does their own thing, once again, we'll end up with a broken company. Why? Because their whole purpose as an enterprise is to leverage success rapidly. If someone is very successful over there, you really need to know, and you need to leverage that again as rapidly as you can to run the rest of the organization. If it doesn’t work, you need to stop it quickly.

In models of the capabilities of that, the question is where is the government structure? So we hear titles like Chief Innovation Officer, again, slightly surprising how it may come up. But we see the model coming both ways. There are reforming CIOs for sure, who have recognized this and are changing their role and position accordingly, sometimes formally, sometimes informally.

The other way around, there are people coming from other parts of the business, taking the title and driving them. I’ve seen Chief Strategy Officers taking the role. I’ve seen the head of sales and marketing taking the role.

Certainly, recognizing the technology possibilities should be coming from the direction of the technology capabilities within the current IT department. The capability of what that means might be coming differently. So it’s a very interesting balance at the moment, and we don’t know quite the right answer.

What I do know is that it’s happening, and the quick-witted CIOs are understanding that it’s a huge opportunity for them to fix their role and embrace a new area, and a new sense of value that they can bring to their organization.

Gardner: Returning to the upcoming Capgemini white paper, it adds a sense of urgency at the end on how to get started. It suggests that you appoint a leader, but a leader first for the inside-out element of cloud and transformation and then a second leader, a separate leader perhaps, for that outside-in or reflecting the business transformation and the opportunity for what’s going on in the external business and markets. It also suggests a strategic road map that involves both business and technology, and then it suggests getting a pilot going.

How does this transition become something that you can manage?

Mulholland: The question is do you know who is responsible. If you don’t, you'd better figure out how you're going to make someone responsible, because in any situation, someone has to be deciding what we're going to do and how we're going to do it.

Having defined that, there are very different business drivers, as well as different technology drivers, between the two. Clearly, whoever takes those roles will reflect a very different way that they will have to run that element. So a duality is recognized in that comment.

On the other hand, no business can survive by going off in half-a-dozen directions at once. You won't have the money. You won't have the brand. You won't have anything you’d like. It's simply not feasible.

So, the object of the strategic roadmap is to reaffirm the idea of what kind of business we're trying to be and do. That’s the glimpse of what we want to achieve.

There has to be a strategy. Otherwise, you’ll end up with way too much decentralization and people making up their own version of the strategy, which they can fairly easily do and fairly easily mount from someone else’s cloud to go and do it today.

So the purpose of the duality is to make sure that the two roles, the two different groups of technology, the two different capabilities they reflect to the organization, are properly addressed, properly managed, and properly have a key authority figure in charge of them.

The business strategy is to make sure that the business knows how the enablement model that these two offer them is capable of being directed to where the shareholders will make money out of the business, because that is ultimately that success factor they're looking for to drive them forward.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript or download a copy.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 16th January 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

The latest BriefingsDirect case study podcast discussion centers on how Nottingham Trent University gained strategic operational efficiency and improved IT management.

A combination of professional services and portfolio management technologies allowed the 25,000-student university—one of the U.K.’s largest—to improve end-user satisfaction while freeing up IT resources to pursue additional technology innovation.

To learn more, BriefingsDirect brought together Ian Griffiths, Director of Strategic Partnerships at Nottingham Trent University, and Michael Garrett, Vice President of Professional Services for HP EMEA. The discussion was moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: What was the one glaring thing that needed to be changed when you began to think about improving how you did IT?

Griffiths: We were very, very good at moving forward and doing lots and lots of things, but delivering products at the end of that period was more difficult. We seemed to be running around in circles, and didn’t quite meet customers’ expectations. So we were doing a lot, working really hard, but not really delivering the last mile.

Gardner: Why did something like professional services become a priority for you?

Griffiths: We found that our processes were not really defined well enough. We really weren’t getting sign-off from the business, and the expectations were never really met. So it was clear that we were not doing something well, and we didn’t quite know what that was. And our teams within the department weren’t gelling that well together either.

Gardner: So perhaps having some outside additional authority and experience seemed to work for you?

Griffiths: Yes. That worked really well. We had had another attempt about 18 months before, and had some consultants in, but it didn’t really gel. We were aware that we had a partnership with HP, and HP Professional Services seemed a sensible way to go. But we were still doubtful as a management team within the university's Information Services (IS) Department whether it was really going to work. And we are very pleased with the outcome.

Gardner: Let’s learn about Nottingham Trent University. You’re in Nottinghamshire and you have 25,000 students. Tell us a bit more.

Griffiths: We’ve been a higher education establishment for about 160 years. We’re one of the biggest providers of "sandwich education," which means that students have two years at the university, a year in industry, and then a year at the university.

We're seen as a popular university that has good reputation for placing students at the end of their courses, and we got top of The Green Agenda twice in the last three years within the U.K. We have about 150 people working in the IS Department on three campuses and nine academic schools.

I have responsibility for the strategic partnership we have with companies and with firms. I have responsibility for the regional network within the East Midlands of the U.K., which is connecting all the universities in that region and all the further education colleges. And I also manage relationships with key suppliers, such as HP.

Gardner: Ian had a relationship with HP, but looked for something bigger.

Garrett: It’s often imagined that these organizations look to pure-play consulting organizations for that advisory activity. In Nottingham Trent’s situation they were willing to listen to a different type of vendor or organization in that space as to what they could offer in their approach. What’s different for HP Professional Services is that it forms part of HP’s Software organization. Our consulting capability is very focused on IT transformation, operations, organizations, and applications.

But it’s about bringing that into real practical use quickly with the support of technology. That's the real differentiator we wanted to bring to customers like Nottingham Trent, and hopefully that’s true with what we've seen in the practical implementation and the work we've done with them.

Gardner: Ian, how has this worked out for you?

Griffiths: We had some initial workshops where all the senior management team of the IS Department worked with HP and looked at what we wanted to achieve, and looked at what the journey might look like to get there. I have to congratulate HP. They were able to get that team to gel together within IS in a way that we hadn’t before.

We spent a lot of time working together and working through the structure, the plan of the department, and what we called the "tube map" of the department. Everything, in a sense, was allowed. HP was very good at giving us a straw man to look at. In other words, giving those examples of what other companies have done, but forcing us to discuss them in detail and change them into what was right for Nottingham Trent.

They weren’t trying to sell the straw man, but were using the straw man as an example to move us forward, and it worked extremely well. Although there were some heated discussions amongst IS staff, HP was very good at facilitating those discussions.

We had to go back to the rest of the department to try not to force something new on people that, as far as they could see, had no relevance to the situations they were in. We had to find a way, as well, of getting the business to buy into our new methodology, getting the business to feel some ownership, and getting the business to make some decisions during the planning of projects and the ending of projects.

Garrett: It’s that level of being able to bring the input, the straw man, and then guide organizations around that model. To customize from scratch takes a great deal of time and can take too much energy and cost. What we’re trying to do is bring our method and models at the start point and then work in a very collaborative, but directed, way to get clients to a point, although, a configured approach rather than a completely dispersed approach.

Therefore, we get to things more quickly, but absolutely meet the requirement of the individual organization. We’ve got to appreciate they are different across different industries and different areas, and strong cultural alignment is critically important. We certainly saw that in this program.

Griffiths: The important thing again was that we were producing our outline, and that outline allowed us to go away and do a lot more detail later. In other words, we got the big picture agreed upon and then all the details were passed back to teams within the department to build up details in the areas where they had real knowledge of what happened.

Gardner: Was there a point at some time where you needed to get an understanding of where and what’s going on in order to know how to measure any improvement?

Griffiths: An important step early on in this was beginning to define how many projects we were running as a department and to categorize work into projects that were developmental and projects that were more of the business-as-usual type.

We found in the end that we had over 100 projects running simultaneously. Some of those projects had been running for more than a year, some had no real defined endpoint, and the customer requirements weren’t documented in a thorough way.

It’s important to measure how many projects you’ve actually got, and actually have a start date and a planned finish date for them. One thing we learned was that 100 was too many for us to run, and we were able to cut down by finishing some off, to less than 50 that we have now.

Gardner: And what has that done now? What are some of the metrics of success by getting more of a handle over your portfolio and managing it?

Griffiths: Probably the biggest one is that projects are getting completed and the project didn’t become the be-all and end-all, and continue running forever. We were actually delivering something that the customer was expecting. And the customer, the student or the staff department, had a glow that they have had something delivered to them.

The student satisfaction with IS has gone up over the last two to three years. They're very happy with our technology and technology moving forward. But again, we found that people were happier with the delivery of an item, rather than as IS was before, striving for technical perfection.

Before, we had the figures of 80 percent [of IT projects] being used in the areas of business-as-usual, and only 20 percent in project and development work. We quickly moved to a 70/30 split and our target is to move towards 50 percent. We're not quite there yet, but we’re a lot more like 60 percent business as usual, 40 percent new development work.

It’s a virtuous cycle, and the other thing that is gained from that is appreciation amongst other departments within the university and with senior management with what IS was delivering, and getting them to prioritize what we did.

There was a problem, if we look back two or three years. IS very much decided what the priorities were. Now, the business is deciding and even deciding in the case that a project that was a favorite of a senior member of staff, he or she may decide that it no longer is a top priority, compared with other projects that needed to be delivered.

Gardner: Is there something about the products themselves, the portfolio management approach, that now allows the business side of the organization, the leadership in this case, to have more visibility or input? How were you able to get it?

Griffiths: More visibility and more input. The example we always give is of a jam jar. You can keep putting rocks into a jam jar, but in the end, it becomes full. Unless you allow something to come out of that, nothing happens. So you’ve got to be able to allow things to finish and give you some capacity.

The other thing that I talked about was looking at the business benefits of everything we were doing and deciding the nice-to-haves probably weren't going to get prioritized at this stage.

We're using [the tube map] outside the department to make people realize that we are working to an operational framework. As such, we have them stuck up round the department. And in the rooms where we have project meetings, they exist as well. As to vocabulary, we have senior staff using the phrase "the gate," where approval has to be given. The business has to be involved in the approval and deciding what priorities it has at that stage.

Gardner: Ian is describing being able to double their innovation budget, cut their project numbers in half, get buy-in from leadership, a sense of cooperation across the organizational boundaries. Is this typical? How would you describe this in terms of the industry at large?

Garrett: It's a typical situation that we see in a lot of organizations, even in very mature, even global and enterprise organizations that struggle with these challenges of organizational alignment and processes to support that. Project selection identification and transitioning to survey is the common problem we see.

With Nottingham Trent, we regulated it very quickly through that organizational design, then into the process to support that, and then working out what are the catalog and services that they offer. How do we then build that into projects and programs and then manage that into service transition?

It's very common. We see it in a lot of places. More mature organizations believe they do this very effectively. Nottingham Trent acknowledged that they needed help. It probably put them ahead of a lot of other organizations, especially in university space, which is a fast moving sector in the U.K., to be able to do something that many other large organizations just can't do.

If you build the right organizational relationship and engagement model, you take the workshop approach that we have up front and take your organization through that, right through to something tangible that’s delivering the real outcome in the business that’s very visible and usable. I think that’s very different than having different organizations do different types of consulting.

Gardner: We've come back to this workshop concept several times in discussion, I think that it's called the Transformation Experience Workshop. Why is that so powerful?

Garrett: It's something we've used for a few years now, something we developed in-house and we see as a really effective mechanism. It starts off in a fairly classic way of where are we, the current state, looking at future state, and workshop of the organization through that. But it's done in a very live, interactive way.

So it's not a classic style workshop. We walk people around the room. We take them on a journey, and we bring them together through that process. As Ian said, if you didn’t attend the early workshop process, then you struggle sometimes to buy into it. It takes more time, and we end up reiterating things later on. The Transformation Experience Workshop is a way of bringing people together and bringing them around their own problems in a very active physical way.

We can do it in a small period of time, but usually people dedicate a day or so to that process. What they get out of it is that they bring themselves together around the challenges, the problems, and as Ian said, the quick wins, the things we can then go and address quickly. So it has a very different feel and a very different outcome than a classic workshop approach that many consulting firms have.

Gardner: And Ian, is this something now that you’re building on?

Griffiths: That's correct. We produced a lot of what we call Level 3 processes from this and we looked at what our customers felt. We found that we’re having regular discussions about how we can tweak the diagrams and the systems that we’ve got in place. We see it very much as a live document, a live methodology and we’re looking at ways we can improve as time goes on.

It's important that you have all your senior staff together designing the system from the start. We found that if people miss the early workshop, we tended to go back around the loop again. So I would say get your staff together and devote enough energy to it.

But don’t go into all the detail. Leave your staff on the ground, who’ve got more knowledge of the details inner workings of some elements of it, to do some work so they feel some ownership. And very quickly get an appreciation with your senior staff within your organization, not within IS, but from outside the IS department, of what you're doing and what you're trying to achieve.

But in the end, you need a few quick wins. In other words, if you can get a couple of projects working through the scheme quickly, people begin to think it's going to work.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript or download a copy.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 13th January 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

This guest post comes courtesy of Tony Baer’s OnStrategies blog. Tony is a senior analyst at Ovum.

When we last left Oracle’s big data plans, there was definitely a missing piece. Oracle’s Big Data Appliance, as initially disclosed at last fall’s OpenWorld, was a vague plan that appeared to be positioned primarily as an appliance that would accompany and feed data to Exadata. Oracle did specify some utilities, such as an enterprise version of the open source R statistical processing program that was designed for multithreaded execution, plus a distribution of a NoSQL database based on Oracle’s BerkeleyDB as an alternative to Apache Hive. But the emphasis appeared to be extraction and transformation of data for Exadata via Oracle’s own utilities that were optimized for its platform.

As such, Oracle’s plan for Hadoop was competition, not for Cloudera (or Hortonworks), which featured a full Apache Hadoop platform, but EMC, which offered a comparable, appliance-based strategy that pairs Hadoop with an Advanced SQL data store; and IBM, which took a different approach by emphasizing Hadoop as an analytics platform destination enhanced with text and predictive analytics engines, and other features such as unique query languages and file systems.

Oracle’s initial Hadoop blueprint lacked explicit support of many pieces of the Hadoop stack such as HBase, Hive, Pig, Zookeeper, and Avro. No more. With Oracle’s announcement of general availability of the big data appliance, it is filling in the blanks by disclosing that it is OEM’ing Cloudera’s CDH Hadoop distribution and, more importantly, the management tooling that is key to its revenue stream. For Oracle, OEM’ing Cloudera’s Hadoop offering fully fleshes out its Hadoop distribution and positions it as a full-fledged analytic platform in its own right; for Cloudera, the deal is a coup that will help establish its distribution as the reference. It is fully consistent with Cloudera’s goal to become the Red Hat of Hadoop as it does not aspire to spread its footprint into applications or frameworks.

Question of acquisition
Of course, whenever you put Oracle in the same sentence as OEM deal, the question of acquisition inevitably pops up. There are several reasons why an Oracle acquisition of Cloudera is unlikely.

1. Little upside for Oracle. While Oracle likes to assert maximum control of the stack, from software to hardware, its foray into productizing its own support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been strictly defensive; its offering has not weakened Red Hat.
   
   
2. Scant leverage. Compare Hadoop to MySQL and you have a Tale of Two Open Source projects. One is hosted and controlled by Apache, the other is hosted and controlled by Oracle. As a result, while Oracle can change licensing terms for MySQL, which it owns, it has no such control over Hadoop. Were Oracle to buy Cloudera, another provider could easily move in to fill the vacuum. The same would happen to Cloudera if, as a prelude to such a deal, it began forking from the Apache project with its own proprietary adds-ons or substitutions.

OEM deals are a major stage of building the market. Cloudera has used its first mover advantage with Hadoop well with deals with Dell, and now Oracle. Microsoft, in turn, has decided to keep the “competition” honest by signing up Hortonworks to (eventually) deliver the Hadoop engine for Azure.

OEM deals are important for attaining another key goal in developing the Hadoop market: defining the core stack – as we’ve ranted about previously. Just as Linux took off once a robust kernel was defined, the script will be identical for Hadoop. With IBM and EMC/MapR forking the Apache stack at the core file system level, and with niche providers like Hadapt offering replacement for HBase and Hive, there is growing variability in the Hadoop stack. However, to develop the third party ecosystem that will be vital to the development of Hadoop, a common target (and APIs for where the forks occur) must emerge. A year from now, the outlines of the market’s decision on what makes Hadoop Hadoop will become clear.

The final piece of the trifecta will be commitments from the Accentures and Deloittes of the world to develop practices based on specific Hadoop platforms. For now they are still keeping their cards close to their vests.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 12th January 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

This BriefingsDirect thought leadership interview comes in conjunction with The Open Group Conference this month in San Francisco.

The conference will focus on how IT and enterprise architecture support enterprise transformation. Speakers in conference events will also explore the latest in service oriented architecture (SOA), cloud computing, and security.

We’re now joined by of the main speakers, Jeanne Ross, Director and Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Center for Information Systems Research. Jeanne studies how firms develop competitive advantage through the implementation and reuse of digitized platforms.

She is also the co-author of three books: IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results, Enterprise Architecture As Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution, and IT Savvy: What Top Executives Must Know to Go from Pain to Gain.

As a lead-in to her Open Group presentation on how adoption of enterprise architecture (EA) leads to greater efficiencies and better business agility, Ross explains how enterprise architects have helped lead the way to successful business transformations. The interview is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: How you measure or determine that enterprise architects and their practices are intrinsic to successful business transformations?

Ross: That’s a great question. Today, there remains kind of a leap of faith in recognizing that companies that are well-architected will, in fact, perform better, partly because you can be well-architected and perform badly. Or if we look at companies that are very young and have no competitors, they can be very poorly architected and achieve quite remarkably in the marketplace.

But what we can ascribe to architecture is that when companies have competition, then they can establish any kind of performance target they want, whether it’s faster revenue growth or better profitability, and then architect themselves so they can achieve their goals. Then, we can monitor that.

We do have evidence in repeated case studies of companies that set goals, defined an architecture, started to build the capabilities associated with that architecture, and did indeed improve their performance. We have wonderful case study results that should be very reaffirming. I accept that they are not conclusive.

We also have statistical support in some of the work we've done that shows that high performers in our sample of 102 companies, in fact, had greater architecture maturity. They had deployed a number of practices associated with good architecture.

Gardner: Is there something that’s new about this, rather than just trying to reengineer something?

Ross: Yes, the thing we're learning about enterprise architecture is that there's a cultural shift that takes place in an organization, when it commits to doing business in a new way, and that cultural shift starts with abandoning a culture of heroes and accepting a culture of discipline.

Nobody wants to get rid of the heroes in their company. Heroes are people who see a problem and solve it. But we do want to get past heroes sub-optimizing. What companies traditionally did before they started thinking about what architecture would mean, is they relied on individuals to do what seemed best and that clearly can sub-optimize in an environment that increasingly is global and requires things like a single face to the customer.

What we're trying to do is adopt a culture of discipline, where there are certain things that people throughout an enterprise understand are the way things need to be done, so that we actually can operate as an enterprise, not as individuals all trying to do the best thing based on our own experience.

The fundamental difference of being an architected firm is that there is some underlying discipline. I'll caution you that what tends to happen is great architects really embrace the discipline. They love the discipline. They understand the discipline, and there is a reluctance to accept that that’s not the only thing we need in our organization. There are times when ad hoc behaviors enable us to be much more innovative and much more responsive and they are exactly what we need to be doing.

So there is a cultural shift that is critical to understanding what it is to be architected. That’s the difference between a successful firm that’s successful because it hasn’t gotten into a world of really tough competition or restrictions on spending and things like that and an organization that is trying to compete in a global economy.

Gardner: What then is the proper role of the architect?

Ross: The architect plays a really critical role in representing the need for this discipline, for some standards in the organization, and for understanding the importance of shared definitions for data. The architect should be able to create a very constructive tension in the organization, and that’s the tension between individuality, innovation, local responsiveness, and the need for enterprise thinking, standardization, and discipline.

Normally, in most companies, the architect’s role will be the enforcer of discipline, standardization and enterprise thinking. ...We want to be architected enough to be efficient, to be able to reuse those things we need to reuse, to be agile, but we don’t want to start embracing architecture for architecture’s sake or discipline for discipline’s sake.

We really just need architecture to pull out unnecessary cost and to enable desirable reusability. And the architect is typically going to be the person representing that enterprise view and helping everyone understand the benefits of understanding that enterprise view, so that everybody who can easily or more easily see the local view is constantly working with architects to balance those two requirements.

Gardner: Is this a particularly good time, from your vantage point, to undertake enterprise architecture?

Ross: It’s a great time for most companies. There will be exceptions that I'll talk about in a minute. One thing we learned early on in the research is that companies who were best at adopting architecture and implementing it effectively had cost pressures. What happens when you have cost pressures is that you're forced to make tough decisions.

If you have all the money in the world, you're not forced to make tough decisions. Architecture is all about making tough decisions, understanding your tradeoffs, and recognizing that you're going to get some things that you want and you are going to sacrifice others.

If you don't see that, if you just say, "We're going to solve that by spending more money," it becomes nearly impossible to become architected. This is why investment banks are invariably very badly architected, and most people in investment banks are very aware of that. It’s just very hard to do anything other than say, "If that’s important to us, let’s spend more money and let’s get it." One thing you can't get by spending more money is discipline, and architecture is very tightly related to discipline.

In a tough economy, when competition is increasingly global and marketplaces are shifting, this ability to make tough decisions is going to be essential. Opportunities to save costs are going to be really valued, and architecture invariably helps companies save money. The ability to reuse, and thus rapidly seize the next related business opportunity, is also going to be highly valued.

The thing you have to be careful of is that if you see your markets disappearing, if your product is outdated, or your whole industry is being redefined, as we have seen in things like media, you have to be ready to innovate. Architecture can restrict your innovative gene, by saying, "Wait, wait, wait. We want to slow down. We want to do things on our platform." That can be very dangerous, if you are really facing disruptive technology or market changes.

So you always have to have that eye out there that says, "When is what we built that’s stable actually constraining us too much? When is it preventing important innovation?" For a lot of architects, that’s going to be tough, because you start to love the architecture, the standards, and the discipline. You love what you've created, but if it isn’t right for the market you're facing, you have to be ready to let it go and go seize the next opportunity.

Gardner: Perhaps this environment is the best of all worlds, because we have that discipline on the costs which forces hard decisions, as you say. We also have a lot of these innovative IT trends that would almost force you to look at doing things differently. I'm thinking again of cloud, mobile, the big data issues, and even social-media types of effects.

Ross: Absolutely. We should all look at it that way and say, "What a wonderful world we live in." One of the companies that I find quite remarkable in their ability to, on the one hand, embrace discipline and architecture, and on the other hand, constantly innovate, is USAA. I'm sure I'll talk about them a little bit at the conference.

This is a company that just totally understands the importance of discipline around customer service. They're off the charts in their customer satisfaction.

They're a financial services institution. Most financial services institutions just drool over USAA’s customer satisfaction ratings, but they've done this by combining this idea of discipline around the customer. We have a single customer file. We have an enterprise view of that customer. We constantly standardize those practices and processes that will ensure that we understand the customer and we deliver the products and services they need. They have enormous discipline around these things.

Simultaneously, they have people working constantly around innovation. They were the first company to see the need for this deposit with your iPhone. Take a picture of your check and it’s automatically deposited into your account. They were nearly a year ahead of the next company that came up with that service.

The way they see it is that for any new technology that comes out, our customer will want to use it. We've got to be there the day after the technology comes out. They obviously haven't been able to achieve that, but that’s their goal. If they can make deals with R&D companies that are coming up with new technologies, they're going to make them, so that they can be ready with their product when the thing actually becomes commercial.

So it's certainly possible for a company to be both innovative and responsive to what’s going on in the technology world and disciplined and cost effective around customer service, order-to-cash, and those other underlying critical requirements in your organization. But it's not easy, and that's why USAA is quite remarkable. They've pulled it off and they are a lesson for many other companies.

Gardner: Is The Open Group a good forum for your message and your research, and if so, why?

Ross: The Open Group is great for me, because there is so much serious thinking in The Open Group about what architecture is, how it adds value, and how we do it well. For me to touch base with people in The Open Group is really valuable, and for me to touch base to share my research and hear the push back, the debate, or the value add is perfect, because these are people who are living it every day.

Gardner: Are there any other major themes that you'll be discussing at the conference coming up that you might want to share with us?

Ross: One thing we have observed in our cases that is more and more important to architects is that the companies are struggling more than we realized with using their platforms well.

I'm not sure that architects or people in IT always see this. You build something that’s phenomenally good and appropriate for the business and then you just assume, that if you give them a little training, they'll use it well.

That’s actually been a remarkable struggle for organizations. One of our research projects right now is called "Working Smarter on Your Digitized Platform." When we go out, we find there aren't very many companies that have come anywhere close to leveraging their platforms the way they might have imagined and certainly the way an architect would have imagined.

It's harder than we thought. It requires persistent coaching. It's not about training, but persistent coaching. It requires enormous clarity of what the organization is trying to do, and organizations change fast. Clarity is a lot harder to achieve than we think it ought to be.

The message for architects would be: here you are trying to get really good at being a great architect. To add value to your organization, you actually have to understand one more thing: how effectively are people in your company adopting the capabilities and leveraging them effectively? At some point, the value add of the architecture is diminished by the fact that people don't get it. They don’t understand what they should be able to do.

We're going to see architects spending a little more time understanding what their leadership is capable of and what capabilities they'll be able to leverage in the organization, as opposed to which on a rational basis seem like a really good idea.

Gardner: When you're an organization and you've decided that you do want to transform and take advantage of unique opportunities for either technical disruption or market discipline, how do you go about getting more structure, more of an architecture?

Ross: That's idiosyncratic to some extent, because in your dream world, what happens is that the CEO announces, "This is what we are going to be five years from now. This is how we are going to operate and I expect everyone to get on board." The vision is clear and the commitment is clear. Then the architects can just say, and most architects are totally capable of this, "Oh, well then, here are the capabilities we need to build. Let’s just go build them and then we'll live happily ever after."

The problem is that’s rarely the way you get to start. Invariably, the CEO is looking at the need for some acquisitions, some new markets, and all kinds of pressures. The last thing you're getting is some clarity around the vision of an operating model that would define your critical architectural capabilities.

What ends up happening instead is architects recognize key business leaders who understand the need for reused standardization, process discipline, whatever it is, and they're very pragmatic about it. They say, "What do you need here to develop an enterprise view of the customer, or what’s limiting your ability to move into the next market?"

And they have to pragmatically develop what the organization can use, as opposed to defining the organizational vision and then the big picture view of the enterprise architecture.

So in practice, it's a much more pragmatic process than what we would imagine when we, for example, write books on how to do enterprise architecture. The best architects are listening very hard to who is asking for what kind of capability. When they see real demand and real leadership around certain enterprise capabilities, they focus their attention on addressing those, in the context of what they realize will be a bigger picture over time.

They can already see the unfolding bigger picture, but there’s no management commitment yet. So they stick to the capabilities that they are confident the organization will use. That’s the way they get the momentum to build. That is more art than science and it really distinguishes the most successful architects.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript or download a copy.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 6th January 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

Better managing virtualized IT workloads and private clouds is a top concern for IT leaders going into 2012. They may want to follow the lead of global travel and tourism giant TUI Group. The IT organization there, TUI InfoTec, has found ways to manage highly virtualized IT operations better, especially in mixed environments like hybrid clouds.

The critical need to better identify performance issues and outages prompted TUI InfoTec to find ways to cut time to troubleshooting, resulting in a 50 percent reduction in the time needed to identify the causes of such problems.

To learn more about better systems management in heterogeneous cloud environments and in virtualized environments, BriefingsDirect interviewed Christian Rudolph, Infrastructure Architect at TUI InfoTec in Hanover, Germany. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: VMware is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Rudolph: We're a very silo-based environment. We have dedicated network storage and a server team responsible for resolving issues in our infrastructure.

What we've seen in the past were a lot of problems in getting these people together. Everybody had different management tools from the different vendors and nobody had an overall view about the infrastructure.

We’re 60 percent in the Windows environment, and 20 percent in the UNIX environment, which is virtualized, and we're currently planning to go further—to 80 percent virtualization in the total landscape. That's our current state, and we’ve driven more and more to a virtualized infrastructure for all the mission-critical systems.

Normally when we have performance issues, our responsibilities are not very clear—this is a server problem, a network problem, an OS system problem, or this is only the end-user who has a problem. He feels that the application isn't fast enough. In the past, we had a large problem getting information all together.

This is where we evaluated VMware vCenter Operations to get an overall overview about our infrastructure and to get a deep dive into our infrastructure to take a look at how can we solve problems faster and how this could help us in the normal process.

Now we have vCenter Operations on a single pane of glass that can roll down to the storage network and also the infrastructure CPU memory resources to have a clear overview of what could be the first root cause of an issue or performance for the end user. We've tried to figure out how can we bring it better together, and for us vCenter Operations, it’s a single pane of glass.

We currently use the vCenter Operations 1.0 Standard version, but we're in the beta program currently for 5.0. It's a new version, which comes out [in 2012] with vCenter Operations 5.0. This version gives us the ability to do capacity planning and also performance analysis in one view so that we can adapt the things we have discovered in normal business hours for the system and also to do capacity planning for the future.

Gardner: Tell me a little bit about TUI, and TUI InfoTec.

Rudolph: TUI InfoTec is an external IT provider for the TUI AG Group. The TUI AG Group is a European leading company in travel and tourism. They're very large in Germany, in the UK, and also in other European countries. They’re not presently doing a lot of business in the US.

We started as an internal IT organization from TUI Germany, and moved in 2006 to an external service provider for the TUI AG and other companies. We're a joint venture company with Sonata Software Ltd., which holds about 50 percent of the company. We're responsible for all the business-critical IT for TUI AG group like the booking systems, the access planning system, and all the other systems related to the business of the TUI AG group.

If it comes to an outage of the IT systems we lose a lot of money. So we have to take care that everything is working and running in the infrastructure.

Gardner: How is your landscape for cloud?

Rudolph: We’re currently thinking about planning our private cloud for our development team. We're also starting to take a look at how, from a cost perspective, we can do the best for our customers. Maybe we can include peak trading for some of the systems. We have a great opening for producing catalogs for the customer, so that they're able to connect our internal cloud over to external clouds and have the hybrid clouds then in place.

Gardner: Okay. How has that beta with vCenter Operations 5.0 worked out? Are some of these features something that you think will be of value to you?

Rudolph: We have two or three good cases there. This has really helped us in the normal business. We've been running with the beta for two months and what we've detected is that we have a good overview, because we have some multi-vCenter environments. We have, in total, three productive vCenters and we need to discover all of them. We had a problem, because we can't use Linked Mode for the vCenters. We had no central view for all the systems to get a performance overview of the system.

And there is a second step. We didn't have the capacity in the same view. So we weren't able to do capacity planning, until we manually got all the information from the different vCenters to have a consolidated planning view. For us, this is one of the most important things that we can do for planning in one place for all our vCenters and also know how many capacity hours are left for new machines. So we increased our time to deliver a virtual machine (VM).

Gardner: What has this better IT visibility in operations and remediation brought to you in technical and in business terms?

Rudolph: The process is very easy, because we've seen that we reduced the time until we can deliver our root cause for our known problem by nearly 50 percent. We reduced the time for doing that, and this is also the best case for our customers—that we can deliver faster solution for a system problem.

The second thing we've seen is that we can see earlier information about how the system is feeling. Through vCenter Operations and through the health status in the vC Ops we can see how our end-users feel. We can detect some problems before they occur, and that’s the best use case we can ever have.

Gardner: How about looking toward the future? We talked a little bit about your use of improved operations, but will this become important when you move to more cloud, software-as-a-service (SaaS), and/or mobile types of activities. How important is this proactive ability in management as you innovate?

Rudolph: It's very important for us. We currently have the vCenter orchestration platform implemented, and we're starting to deliver to the end-user a service portal, where they can request more-and-more VMs. When we didn’t have the products to monitor this system and we come to great trouble. How can we else go further, maybe to a hybrid cloud environment, if we can’t manage our private cloud like now with the vCenter Orchestrator and also with the vC Ops.

Gardner: Taking a step back and reviewing how things have gone, do you have any recommendations or advice for other companies that might be pursuing higher levels of virtualization and perhaps looking for similar reduction in meantime to solution for problems?

Rudolph: I see two recommendations. Not many people know how powerful vCenter Orchestration is. This is one powerful tool as an automatic way for deployment, for maintaining, and also to do some other basic tasks in your virtual infrastructure. This is one important step for us to go to a higher virtualization ratio, because it can be delivered faster to our end-users.

The second thing is really to take a look at vCenter Operations and definitely to the new version that’s coming up. This really helps us to understand how my infrastructure is working. When I don’t know that, I may have problem with one of my disks and I/O and this reflects back to one VM especially. You have to know that, otherwise you don’t have recognition from the end-user that virtualization is really working and that you can bring mission-critical systems to the virtual infrastructure.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript or download a copy.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 5th January 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

This special BriefingsDirect thought leadership interview comes in conjunction with The Open Group Conference this January in San Francisco.

The conference will focus on how IT and enterprise architecture support enterprise transformation. Speakers in conference events will also explore the latest in service oriented architecture (SOA), cloud computing, and security.

We’re here now with one of the main speakers, Joseph Menn, Cyber Security Correspondent for the Financial Times and author of Fatal System Error: The Hunt for the New Crime Lords Who are Bringing Down the Internet.

Joe has covered security since 1999 for both the Financial Times and then before that, for the Los Angeles Times. Fatal System Error is his third book, he also wrote All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster.

As a lead-in to his Open Group presentation, entitled "What You're Up Against: Mobsters, Nation-States, and Blurry Lines," Joe Menn explores the current cyber-crime landscape, the underground cyber-gang movement, and the motive behind governments collaborating with organized crime in cyber space. The interview is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: Have we entered a new period where just balancing risks and costs isn't a sufficient bulwark against burgeoning cyber crime?

Menn: Maybe you can make your enterprise a little trickier to get into than the other guy’s enterprise, but crime pays very, very well and, in the big picture, their ecosystem is better than ours. They do capitalism better than we do. They specialize to a great extent. They reinvest in R&D.

On our end, on the good guys’ side, it's hard if you're a chief information security officer (CISO) or a chief security officer (CSO) to convince the top brass to pay more. You don’t really know what's working and what isn't. You don’t know if you've really been had by something that we call advanced persistent threat (APT). Even the top security minds in the country can't be sure whether they’ve been had or not. So it's hard to know what to spend on.

The other side doesn’t have that problem. They’re getting more efficient in the same way that they used to lead technical innovation. They're leading economic innovation. The freemium model is best evidenced by crimeware kits like ZeuS, where you can get versions that are pretty effective and will help you steal a bunch of money for free. Then if you like that, you have the add-on to pay extra for—the latest and greatest that are sure to get through the antivirus systems.

Gardner: When you say "they," who you are really talking about?

Menn: They, the bad guys? It's largely Eastern European organized crime. In some countries, they can be caught. In other countries they can't be caught, and there really isn't any point in trying.

It's a geopolitical issue, which is something that is not widely understood, because, in general, officials don’t talk about it. Working on my book, and in reporting for the newspapers, I've met really good cyber investigators for the Secret Service and the FBI, but I’ve yet to meet one that thinks he's going to get promoted for calling a press conference and announcing that they can’t catch anyone.

So the State Department, meanwhile, keeps hoping that the other side is going to turn a new leaf, but they’ve been hoping that for 10 or more years, and it hasn’t happened. So it's incumbent upon the rest of us to call a spade a spade here.

What's really going on is that Russian intelligence and, depending on who is in office at a given time, Ukrainian authorities, are knowingly protecting some of the worst and most effective cyber criminals on the planet.

Gardner: And what would be their motivation?

Menn: As a starting point, the level of garden-variety corruption over there is absolutely mind-blowing. More than 50 percent of Russian citizens responding to the survey say that they had paid a bribe to somebody in the past 12 months. But it's gone well beyond that.

The same resources, human and technical, that are used to rob us blind are also being used in what is fairly called cyber war. The same criminal networks that are after our bank accounts were, for example, used in denial-of-service (DOS) attacks on Georgia and Estonian websites belonging to government, major media, and Estonia banks.

It's the same guy, and it's a "look-the-other-way" thing. You can do whatever crime you want, and when we call upon you to serve Mother Russia, you will do so. And that has accelerated. Just in the past couple of weeks, with the disputed elections in Russia, you've seen mass DOS attacks against opposition websites, mainstream media websites, and live journals. It's a pretty handy tool to have at your disposal. I provide all the evidence that would be needed to convince the reasonable people in my book.

Gardner: In your book you use the terms "bringing down the Internet." Is this all really a threat to the integrity of the Internet?

Menn: Well integrity is the key word there. No, I don’t think anybody is about to stop us all from the privilege of watching skateboarding dogs on YouTube. What I mean by that is the higher trust in the Internet in the way it's come to be used, not the way it was designed, but the way it is used now for online banking, ecommerce, and for increasingly storing corporate—and heaven help us, government secrets—in the cloud. That is in very, very great trouble.

I don’t think that now you can even trust transactions not to be monitored and pilfered. The latest, greatest versions of ZeuS gets past multi-factor authentication and are not detected by any antivirus that’s out there. So consumers don’t have a prayer, in the words of Art Coviello, CEO of RSA, and corporations aren’t doing much better.

So the way the Internet is being used now is in very, very grave trouble and not reliable. That’s what I mean by it. If they turned all the botnets in the world on a given target, that target is gone. For multiple root servers and DNS, they could do some serious damage. I don’t know if they could stop the whole thing, but you're right, they don’t want to kill the golden goose. I don’t see a motivation for that.

Gardner: If we look at organized crime in historical context, we found that there is a lot of innovation over the decades. Is that playing out on the Internet as well?

Menn: Sure. The mob does well in any place where there is a market for something, and there isn’t an effective regulatory framework that sustains it—prohibition back in the day, prostitution, gambling, and that sort of thing.

... The Russian and Ukrainian gangs went to extortion as an early model, and ironically, some of the first websites that they extorted with the threat were the offshore gambling firms. They were cash rich, they had pretty weak infrastructure, and they were wary about going to the FBI. They started by attacking those sites in 2003-04 and then they moved on to more garden-variety companies. Some of them paid off and some said, "This is going to look little awkward in our SEC filings" and they didn’t pay off.

Once the cyber gang got big enough, sooner or later, they also wanted the protection of traditional organized crime, because those people had better connections inside the intelligence agencies and the police force and could get them protection. That's the way it worked. It was sort of an organic alliance, rather than "Let’s develop this promising area."

... That is what happens. Initially it was garden-variety payoffs and protection. Then, around 2007, with the attack on Estonia, these guys started proving their worth to the Kremlin, and others saw that with the attacks that ran through their system.

This has continued to evolve very rapidly. Now the DOS attacks are routinely used as the tool for political repression all around the world—Vietnam, Iran and everywhere you’ll see critics that are silenced from DOS attacks. In most cases, it's not the spy agencies or whoever themselves, but it's their contract agents. They just go to their friends in the similar gangs and say, "Hey do this." What's interesting is that they are both in this gray area now, both Russia and China, which we haven't talked about as much.

In China, hacking really started out as an expression of patriotism. Some of the biggest attacks, Code Red being one of them, were against targets in countries that were perceived to have slighted China or had run into some sort of territorial flap with China, and, lo and behold, they got hacked.

In the past several years, with this sort of patriotic hacking, the anti-defense establishment hacking in the West that we are reading a lot about finally, those same guys have gone off and decided to enrich themselves as well. There were actually disputes in some of the major Chinese hacking groups. Some people said it was unethical to just go after money, and some of these early groups split over that.

In Russia, it went the other way. It started out with just a bunch of greedy criminals, and then they said, "Hey—we can do even better and be protected. You have better protection if you do some hacking for the motherland." In China, it's the other way. They started out hacking for the motherland, and then added, "Hey—we can get rich while serving our country."

So they're both sort of in the same place, and unfortunately it makes it pretty close to impossible for law enforcement in [the U.S.] to do anything about it, because it gets into political protection. What you really need is White House-level dealing with this stuff. If President Obama is going to talk to his opposite numbers about Chinese currency, Russian support of something we don’t like, or oil policy, this has got to be right up there too—or nothing is going to happen at all.

Gardner: What about the pure capitalism side, stealing intellectual property (IP) and taking over products in markets with the aid of these nefarious means? How big a deal is this now for enterprises and commercial organizations?

Menn: It is much, much worse than anybody realizes. The U.S. counterintelligence a few weeks ago finally put out a report saying that Russia and China are deliberately stealing our IP, the IP of our companies. That's an open secret. It's been happening for years. You're right. The man in the street doesn’t realize this, because companies aren’t used to fessing up. Therefore, there is little outrage and little pressure for retaliation or diplomatic engagement on these issues.

I'm cautiously optimistic that that is going to change a little bit. This year the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) gave very detailed guidance about when you have to disclose when you’ve been hacked. If there is a material impact to your company, you have to disclose it here and there, even if it's unknown.

Gardner: So the old adage of shining light on this probably is in the best interest of everyone. Is the message then keeping this quiet isn’t necessarily the right way to go?

Menn: Not only is it not the right way to go, but it's safer to come out of the woods and fess up now. The stigma is almost gone. If you really blow the PR like Sony, then you're going to suffer some, but I haven’t heard a lot of people say, "Boy, Google is run by a bunch of stupid idiots. They got hacked by the Chinese."

It's the definition of an asymmetrical fight here. There is no company that's going to stand up against the might of the Chinese military, and nobody is going to fault them for getting nailed. Where we should fault them is for covering it up.

I think you should give the American people some credit. They realize that you're not the bad guy, if you get nailed. As I said, nobody thinks that Google has a bunch of stupid engineers. It is somewhere between extremely difficult to impossible to ward off against "zero-days" and the dedicated teams working on social engineering, because the TCP/IP is fundamentally broken and it ain't your fault.

...[These threats] are an existential threat not only to your company, but to our country and to our way of life. It is that bad. One of the problems is that in the U.S., executives tend to think a quarter or two ahead. If your source code gets stolen, your blueprints get taken, nobody might know that for a few years, and heck, by then you're retired.

With the new SEC guidelines and some national plans in the U.K. and in the U.S., that’s not going to cut it anymore. Executives will be held accountable. This is some pretty drastic stuff. The things that you should be thinking about, if you’re in an IT-based business, include figuring out the absolutely critical crown jewel one, two, or three percent of your stuff, and keeping it off network machines.

Gardner: So we have to think differently, don’t we?

Menn: Basically, regular companies have to start thinking like banks, and banks have to start thinking like intelligence agencies. Everybody has to level up here.

Gardner: What do the intelligence agencies have to start thinking about?

Menn: The discussions that are going on now obviously include greatly increased monitoring, pushing responsibility for seeing suspicious stuff down to private enterprise, and obviously greater information sharing between private enterprise, and government officials.

But, there's some pretty outlandish stuff that’s getting kicked around, including looking the other way if you, as a company, sniff something out in another country and decide to take retaliatory action on your own. There’s some pretty sea-change stuff that’s going on.

Gardner: So that would be playing offense as well as defense?

Menn: In the Defense Authorization Act that just passed, for the first time, Congress officially blesses offensive cyber-warfare, which is something we’ve already been doing, just quietly.

We’re entering some pretty new areas here, and one of the things that’s going on is that the cyber warfare stuff, which is happening, is basically run by intelligence folks, rather by a bunch of lawyers worrying about collateral damage and the like, and there's almost no oversight because intelligence agencies in general get low oversight.

Gardner: Just quickly looking to the future, we have some major trends. We have an increased movement toward mobility, cloud, big data, social. How do these big shifts in IT impact this cyber security issue?

Menn: Well, there are some that are clearly dangerous, and there are some things that are a mixed bag. Certainly, the inroads of social networking into the workplace are bad from a security point of view. Perhaps worse is the consumerization of IT, the bring-your-own-device trend, which isn't going to go away. That’s bad, although there are obviously mitigating things you can do.

The cloud itself is a mixed bag. Certainly, in theory, it could be made more secure than what you have on premise. If you’re turning it over to the very best of the very best, they can do a lot more things than you can in terms of protecting it, particularly if you’re a smaller business.

If you look to the large-scale banks and people with health records and that sort of thing that really have to be ultra-secure, they're not going to do this yet, because the procedures are not really set up to their specs yet. That may likely come in the future. But, cloud security, in my opinion, is not there yet. So that’s a mixed blessing.

You need to think strategically about this, and that includes some pretty radical steps. There are those who say there are two types of companies out there—those that have been hacked and those that don’t know that they’ve been hacked.

Everybody needs to take a look at this stuff beyond their immediate corporate needs and think about where we’re heading as a society. And to the extent that people are already expert in the stuff or can become expert in this stuff, they need to share that knowledge, and that will often mean, saying "Yes, we got hacked" publicly, but it also means educating those around them about the severity of the threat.

One of the reasons I wrote my book, and spent years doing it, is not because I felt that I could tell every senior executive what they needed to do. I wanted to educate a broader audience, because there are some pretty smart people, even in Washington, who have known about this for years and have been unable to do anything about it. We haven't really passed anything that's substantial in terms of legislation.

As a matter of political philosophy, I feel that if enough people on the street realize what's going on, then quite often leaders will get in front of them and at least attempt to do the right thing. Senior executives should be thinking about educating their customers, their peers, the general public, and Washington to make sure that the stuff that passes isn't as bad as it might otherwise be.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript or download a copy.

By: Simon Holloway, Practice Leader - Process Management & RFID, Bloor Research Posted: 22nd December 2011 Copyright Bloor Research © 2011

While doing the research for the update of the Bloor Market Update on BRMS, I came across a number of vendors that I must have missed when doing the original survey. One of these was AuraPortal.

So who are AuraPortal? AuraPortal was founded in 2001 with a funding of $30 million in shareholder's equity. The company is one of those software companies that has dual headquarters; one in the USA - Woburn, Greater Boston, and the other in Europe - Houten in the Netherlands. The company has its development centre in Valencia, Spain. It has cleverly sited offices in key geographical locations to support its partners, thus giving it a global reach. Currently, AuraPortal has 400 certified consultants within more than 100 partners worldwide.

So what about the product? Well AuraPortal BPMS is fully internet enabled and consists of a set of integrated applications suitable for virtually any organisation:

• A Business Process Management Suite (BPMS) with an innovative Business Rules system, either independent to or related to BPM processes.
• A Customer Relationship Management (CRM) solution totally built with Process Pattern templates,
• An Intranet/Extranet platform with dedicated workflow for collaboration,
• A Document Handling system can include Microsoft SharePoint,
• A Customizable Portal for Enterprise Content Management that interacts with the BPM engine.
• An Online Commerce system integrated with the BPM engine

AuraPortal's server platform is based on Microsoft .NET, and developed with C#, AJAX and Javascript, running on Microsoft SQL Relational Database version 2000, 2005 or 2008. The AuraPortal Modeller is based on Microsoft Visio 2003, 2007 or 2010, both Standard and Professional, with special features added to increase its capabilities; these include support for BPMN notation. Furthermore, AuraPortal has built a Modeler based on Java language.

Figure 1: AuraPortal Environment (Source: AuraPortal)

The Process Pattern applications for CRM are separately priced add-ons. They are classes of processes of general application that are already prepared by AuraPortal containing the knowledge and structure related to a given subject or within a particular environment. The CRM Patterns available are as follows:

• Wide Interaction Platform
• Commerce through Internet with Social Networks Enhancement
• Marketing Campaigns
• Sales Opportunities Follow-up

For what you get, AuraPortal is really good value for money with a very low maintenance percentage figure based on license fee, as well as a reasonable licence cost. This is particularly true for organisations wanting to implement CRM as the process patterns are very good and easy to use. Bloor particularly like the way AuraPortal has integrated business rules into the process definition process. Its capacity to create even the most complex Business Process Workflow Execution Models without the need of IT programming makes the difference. At present, AuraPortal is offering the use of licenses both in rental mode with a yearly commitment or in property for unlimited time.

By: Gerry Brown, Analyst - Digital Marketing & CRM, Bloor Research Posted: 22nd December 2011 Copyright Bloor Research © 2011

Marketing and IT have never been a match made in heaven. Extrovert creative communicators and geeky analytical techies rarely choose to passionately embrace. However, corporate needs, rather than partner choices, will take precedence in 2012.

Corporate confidence has been rocked by the ferocity and intensity of competition encountered during the current global economic downturn. Key clients and deals have been lost, salespeople are omitted from the early stages of procurements as customers research possible solutions online, and many products increasingly look undifferentiated and 'me-too'.

Many highly profitable companies are now 'looking down the gun barrel' of commoditisation and low margins caused by global competition. Senior management wants Marketing to make their companies more presentable, attractive, and relevant in order to restore premium pricing.

Marketing is now expected to take a central user role in selecting new customer-centric technologies. These include creating a Single Customer View (SCV) and involvement in customer-oriented uses and applications for 'big data'. Marketing needs to report on customer insights and analytics, better manage the customer experience, and to embrace new social media and mobility. Even 75% of marketers identify these latter elements as 'important' says a recent Marketing Week / SAS study. Little wonder then that 'familiarity with marketing technologies' is the most desirable attribute for new hires in marketing, according to an eConsultancy / Eloqua report.

To date, many digital marketing technology investments have been piecemeal and low cost, and funded out of general discretionary marketing budgets. Often marketers outsource digital marketing to ESPs (Email Service Providers) and creative agencies to manage customer and sales prospect databases, email campaign execution, search and online advertising, and web site management.

In 2012 marketers will take back some control of digital assets from external agencies. Digital marketing will emerge as an enterprise mission-critical core competence, managed in-house and supplemented with specialist agency skills, not the other way around. More techie analyst / statistician types will be recruited into marketing. Digital marketing investment will need to ratchet up a gear in 2012 as data-driven Marketing takes centre stage.

"So what has this got to do with the IT Department?" you might ask. Well, Marketing mostly will not have the line-item budget to support the level of digital marketing investment required. Secondly, marketers may be gaining desktop IT skills, but have a limited understanding of enterprise IT architectures and the constraints and complexities associated with managing and controlling enterprise data. Marketers rarely have the attention to detail, the numerical and statistical disciplines, and the procedural rigour that is commonplace in the IT Department.

Marketing needs financial help and technical support from the IT Department to make digital marketing happen in the all-embracing manner envisioned by corporate management. New scalable digital marketing technologies, common platforms, and open standards will be required to ensure interoperability with cloud services. Legacy digital marketing systems will be migrated or replaced. 'Proper' IT management and support is required from the IT Department. Marketers need to get on with the day job of being professional marketers, rather than tactical amateur technologists with the resultant risks to data integrity, security, and compliance, as has been happening recently.

In summary, IT and Marketing will need to create a close and harmonious relationship to produce the customer-centric end-result demanded by corporate management. The passionate embrace required may take some humbleness from both sides. However, such a business-IT partnership has a great opportunity to deliver against corporate goals, and enhance the image of two much-maligned departments that often suffer from a lack of corporate credence and credibility.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 21st December 2011 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2011

This BriefingsDirect podcast discussion centers on how worldwide enterprise applications leader SAP has designed and implemented a private cloud infrastructure model that supports an internal consulting and training program.

By standardizing on a VMware cloud platform, SAP has been able to slash provisioning times for multiple instances of its flagship application suite in the training setting, as well as set the stage for wider adoption of cloud models.

Here to tell us about the technical and productivity benefits of private clouds is Dr. Wolfgang Krips, Senior Vice President of Global Infrastructure at SAP in Walldorf, Germany. The interview is conducted by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: VMware is a sponsor of Briefings Direct podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: What is it about private cloud that made the most sense for SAP?

Krips: Expanding a bit on the use case, there is a specific challenge here. In the training business, people book their courses, and we know only on Friday evening who is attending the course on Monday. So we have only a very short amount of time over the weekend to set up the systems. That was one of the big challenges that we had to solve.

The second challenge is that, at the same time, these systems become more and more mission critical. Customers are saying, "If the system isn't available during the course, I'm not willing to pay." Maybe the customer will rebook the course. Sometimes he doesn’t. That means that if the systems aren't available, we have an immediate revenue impact.

You can imagine that if we have to set up a couple of hundred, or potentially a couple of thousand, systems over the weekend, we need a high degree of automation to do that. In the past, we had homegrown scripts, and there was a lot of copying and stuff like that going on. We were looking into other technologies and opportunities to make life easier for us.

A couple of challenges were that the scripts and the automation that we had before were dependent on the specific hardware that we used, and we can't use the same hardware for each of the courses. We have different hardware platforms and we had to adopt all the scripts to various hardware platforms.

When we virtualized and used virtualization technology, we could make use of linked cloning technology, which allowed us to set up the systems much faster than the original copying that we did.

The second thing was that by introducing the virtualization layer, we became almost hardware independent, and that cut the effort in constructing or doing the specific automation significantly.

Gardner: What did you need to put in place, and how difficult was it?

Krips: Luckily, we already had some experience. The big thing in setting up the cloud is not getting, say, vSphere in place and the basic virtualization technology. It's the administration and making it available in self-service or the automation of the provisioning. That is the important piece, as most would have guessed.

We had some experience with the Lifecycle Manager and the Lab Manager before. So we said at that time because we did this last year, we set up a Lab Manager installation and worked with that to realize this kind of private cloud.

In this specific cloud, typically we have between a couple of hundred and a couple of thousand VMs running. Overall, at SAP we're running more than 20,000 virtual machines (VMs). And, in fact, I have about 25 private cloud installations.

... As I mentioned, this cloud has to work. If this goes down, it’s not like some kind of irrelevant test system is down—or test system pool—and we can take up another one. Potentially a lot of training courses are not happening. With respect to mission criticality, this cloud was essential.

Gardner: We often hear similar requirements being applied to a test and development environment. Are some of your clouds involved with the test and development as well?

Krips: As I mentioned before, we have 25 private-cloud installations, and in fact, most of them are with development. We also have cloud installations in the demo area. So if sales people are providing demos, there are certain landscapes or resource pools where we are instantiating demo systems.

SAP wants to shorten the innovation cycles. Internally, we've moved to a development model, where every six weeks development provides potentially a shippable release. It doesn’t mean that the release gets shipped, but we’re running through the whole process of developing something, testing it, and validating it. There is a demonstrable release available every six weeks.

In the past, with a traditional model, if we were provisioning physical hardware, it took us about 30 days or so to provision a development system. Now, if you think about a development cycle of six weeks and you’re taking about nearly the same amount of time for provisioning the development system, you’ll see that there is a bit of a mismatch.

Moving to the private cloud and doing this in self-service, today we can provision development systems within hours.

Gardner: That’s what I hear from a number of organizations, and it's very impressive. When you had a choice of different suppliers, vendors, and professional services organizations, was there everything that led you specifically to VMware, and how has that worked out?

Krips: I can give you a fairly straightforward answer. At the time we started working with private cloud and private-cloud installations, VMware was the most advanced provider of that technology, and I'd argue that it is still today.

Gardner: How about security and management benefits?

Krips: From our perspective, we wanted to have the advantages of cloud with respect to flexibility, provisioning speed, but we didn’t want to have more security headaches than we already had. That’s why we said, "Let's get our arms first around a private cloud."

Gardner: Is there something about a standardized approach to your cloud stack that makes that hybrid potential, when you’re ready to do it, when it's the right payload, something that you'll be pursuing?

Krips: That’s one of our biggest problems that we're having. Clearly, if one had a standard cloud interface like a vCloud interface, and it was the industry norm, that would be extremely helpful. The issue is that, as you can imagine, there are a couple of workloads that we also want to test in some other well known clouds. I'm having a bit of a headache over how to connect to multiple clouds.

... Now, if a couple of interesting providers had a standardized cloud interface, it would be very nice for me.

Gardner: Any thoughts about what your experience and benefits with cloud might mean for your future vision around client devices and mobility?

Krips: Dana, the thing is pretty clear. If you look at the strategy that SAP pursues, mobility is an integral part. We also think that not only that business process mobility is more important, but what we’re also seeing, and I mentioned that before, with the agility and development. So for instance, there are people who are working every couple of months in new teams. For us, it's very important that we separate the user data and the desktop from the device. We’re definitely pushing very strongly into the topic of desktop virtualization (VDI).

The big challenge that we’re currently having is that when you’re moving to VDI, you take everything that’s on the user's desktop today, then you make out of that more or less a software-as-a-service (SaaS) application. As you can imagine, if you’re doing that to development, and they are doing some complex development for the user interfaces or stuff like that, this puts certain challenges on the latency that you can have to the data center or the processing power that you need to have in the back-end.

From our side, we’re interested in technologies similar to that view, and where you can check out machines and still run on a VDI client, but leverage the administrative and provisioning advantages that you have through the cloud provisioning for virtual desktops. So it's a pretty interesting challenge.

We understand what kind of benefits we’re getting from the cloud operations, as I said, the center provisioning, application patching, improved license management, there are a lot of things that are very, very important to us and that we want to leverage.

Particularly for us, the VDI, the benefits, are very much in the kind of centralized provisioning. Just to give you an example, imagine how easy it would be if you’re doing desktop virtualization, to move from Windows 7 to Windows 8. You could basically flip a switch.

On the other hand, we have to solve the issue that we’re not blowing the business case, because the processing power and the storage that you have at the end point is relatively cheap. That’s why we were so interested in VDI technologies. That would allow us also to take care of all of our mobile users.

But we’re confident that we can get the business case to work.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript or download a copy.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 19th December 2011 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2011

The latest BriefingsDirect discussion targets the need to make sense of the deluge and complexity of the data and information that is swirling in and around modern enterprises. Most large organizations today are able to identify, classify, and exploit only a small portion of the total data and information within their systems and processes.

Perhaps half of those enterprises actually have a strategy for improving on this dismal fact. But business leaders are now recognizing that managing and exploiting information is a core business competency that will increasingly determine their overall success. That means broader solutions to data distress are being called for.

This discussion then examines how metadata-driven data virtualization and improved orchestration can help provide the inclusion and scale to accomplish far better data management. Such access then leads to improved integration of all information into an approachable resource for actionable business activities.

With us now to help better understand these issues—and the market for solutions to these problems—are Noel Yuhanna, Principal Analyst at Forrester Research, and Todd Brinegar, Senior Vice President for Sales and Marketing at Stone Bond Technologies. The panel is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: Stone Bond is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: It’s hard to overstate that the size and rate of growth of data and information is just overwhelming the business world. Why is it a critical stage now to change how we're addressing these issues?

Yuhanna: We have customers who have 55,000 databases, and they plan to double this in the next three to four years. Imagine trying to manage 55,000 databases. It’s a nightmare. In fact, they don’t even know what the count is actually.

The data has been growing significantly over the last few years because of different application deployments, different devices, such as mobile devices, and different environments, such as globalization. These are obviously creating a bigger need for integration.

Then, they're dealing with unstructured data, which is more than 75 percent of the data. It’s a huge challenge trying to manage this unstructured data. Forget about the intrusions and the hackers trying to break in. You can’t even manage that data.

Then, obviously, we have challenges of heterogeneous data sources, structured, unstructured, semi-structured. Then, we have different database types, and then, data is obviously duplicated quite a lot as well. These are definitely bigger challenges than we've ever seen.

Gardner: We're not just dealing with an increase in data, but we have all these different data sources. We're still dealing with mainframes.

It seems to me that you can’t just deal with big data. You have to deal with the right data. What’s the difference between big data and right data?

Yuhanna: It’s like GIGO, Garbage In, Garbage Out. A lot of times, organizations that deal with data don’t know what data they're dealing with. They don’t know that it’s valuable data in the organization. The big challenge is how to deal with this data.

The other thing is making business sense of this data. That's a very important point. And right data is important. I know a lot of organizations think, "Well, we have big data, but then we want to just aggregate the data and generate reports." But are these reports valuable? Fifty percent of times they're not, and they've just burned away 1,000 CPU cycles for this big data.

That's where there's a huge opportunity for organizations that are dealing with such big data. First of all, you need to understand what this big data means, and ask are you going to be utilizing it. Throwing something into the big data framework is useless and pointless, unless you know the data.

Brinegar: Noel is 100 percent correct, and it is all about the right data, not just a lot of data. It’s interesting. We have clients that have a multiplicity of databases. Some they don’t even know about or no longer use, but there is relevant data in there.

When you were talking about the ability to attach to mainframes, all legacy systems, as well as incorporated into today’s environments, that's really a big challenge for a lot of integration solutions and a lot of companies.

So the ability to come in, attach, and get the right data and make that data actionable and make it matter to a company is really key and critical today. And being able to do that with the lowest cost of ownership in the market and the highest time to value equation—so that the companies aren’t creating a huge amount of tech on top of the tech that they already have to get at this right data—that’s really the key critical part.

Gardner: What’s with this notion about orchestrating, metadata, and data virtualization? Why are some of these architectural approaches being sought out, especially for real-time uses?

Yuhanna: You have to look at the holistic data set. Today, most organizations or business users want to look at the complete data sets in terms of how to make business decisions. Typically, what they're seeing is that data has always been in silos, in different repositories, and different data segregations. They did try to bring this all together like in a warehouse trying to deliver this value.

But then the volumes of data, the real-time data needs are definitely a big challenge. Warehouses weren't meant to be real-time. They were able to handle data, but not in real time.

So this whole data segregation delivers a yet even better superior framework to deliver real-time data and the right data to consumers, to processes, to applications, whether it’s structured data, semi-structured, unstructured data, all coming together from different sources—not only on-premise, also off-premise, such as partner's data and marketplace data coming together and providing that framework toward different elements.

We talked about this many years ago and called it the information fabric, which is basically data virtualization that delivers this whole segregation of data in that layer, so that it could be consumed by different applications as a service, and this is all delivered in a real-time manner.

Now, an important point here is that it's not just read-only, but you can also write back through this virtualized layer, so that it can get back at the data.

Definitely, things have changed with this new framework and there are solutions out there that offer this whole framework, not only just accessing data and integrating data, but they also have frameworks, which includes metadata, security, integration, transformation.

Gardner: For the companies that you work with at Forrester, when they do this correctly, what sort of benefits are they able to gain?

Yuhanna: The good thing about data virtualization is that it's not just a single benefit. There are many, many benefits of data virtualization, and there are customers who are doing real-time business intelligence (BI), business with data virtualization. As I mentioned, there are drawbacks and limitations in some of the older approaches, technologies, and architectures we've used for decades.

We want real-time BI, in the sense that you can’t just wait a day for this report to show up. You need this every hour or every minute. So these are important decisions you've got to make for that.

Real-time BI is definitely one of the big drivers for data virtualization, but also having a single version of the truth. As you know, more than 30 percent of data is duplicated in an organization. That’s a very conservative number. Many people don’t know how much data is duplicated.

And you have different duplication of data—customer data, product data, or internal data. There are many different types of data that is duplicated. Then the data has a quality issue, because you may change customer data in one of the applications that may touch one database, but the other database is not synchronized as such. What you get is inconsistent data, and customers and other business users don’t really value the data actually anymore.

A single version of the truth is a very important deliverable from solutions, which has never been done before, unless you have one single database actually, but most organizations have multiple databases.

Also it's creating this whole dashboard. You want to get data from different sources, be able to present business value to the consumers, to the business users, what have you, and the other cases like enterprise search, you're able to search data very quickly.

Imagine if an auditor walks into an organization, they want to look at data for a particular event, or an activity, or a customer, searching across a thousand resources. It could be a nightmare. The compliance initiative through data virtualization becomes a lot simpler.

Then, you're doing things like content-management applications, which need to be delivered in federation and integrate data from many sources to present more valuable information. Also, smart phones and mobile devices want data from different systems so that they all tie together to their consumers, to the business users, effectively.

So data virtualization has quite a strong value proposition and, typically, organizations get the return on investment (ROI) within six months or less with data virtualization.

Brinegar: This is exactly the fabric and the framework that Enterprise Enabler, Stone Bond’s integration technology, is built on.

What we've done is look at it from a different approach than traditional integration. Instead of taking old technologies and modifying those technologies linearly to effect an integration and bring that data into a staging database and then do a transformation and then massage it, we've looked at it three-dimensionally.

We attach with our AppComms, which are our connectors, to the metadata layer of an application. We don’t agent within the application. We get at the data of the data. We separate that data from multiple sources, unlimited sources, and orchestrate that to a view that a client has. It could be Salesforce.com, SharePoint, a portal, Excel spreadsheets, or anything that they're used to consuming that data in.

Gardner: Just to be clear, Todd, your architecture and solution approach is not only for access for analysis, for BI, for dashboards and insights—but this is also for real-time running application sets. This is actionable data?

Brinegar: Absolutely. With Enterprise Enabler, we're not only a data-integration tool, we're an applications-integration tool. So we are EAI/ETL. We cover that full spectrum of integration. And as you said, it is the real-time solution, the ability to access and act on that information in real time.

Enterprise Enabler provides the ability to virtualize, federate, orchestrate, all in real-time and is a huge value. The biggest thing is time to value though. How quickly can they get the software configured and operational within their enterprise? That is really the key that is driving a lot of our clients’ actions.

When we do an installation, a client can be up and operational doing their first integration transformations within the first day. That’s a huge time-to-value benefit for that client. Then, they can be fully operational with complex integration in under three weeks. That's really astounding in the marketplace.

I have one client that on one single project calculated $1.5 million cost savings in personnel in the first year. That’s not even taking into account a technology that they may be displacing by putting in Enterprise Enabler. Those are huge components.

HP is a great example. HP runs Enterprise Enabler in their supply chain for their Enterprise Server Group. That group provides data to all the suppliers within the Enterprise Server Group on an on-time basis.

They are able to build on demand and take care of their financials in the manufacturing of the servers much more efficiently than they ever have. They were experiencing, I believe, a 10-times return on investment within the first year. That’s a huge cost benefit for that organization. It's really kept them a great client of ours.

We do quite a bit of work in the oil business and the oil-field services business, and each one of our clients has experienced a faster ROI and a lower total cost of ownership (TCO).

We just announced recently that most of our clients experienced a 300 percent ROI in the first year that they implemented Enterprise Enabler. CenterPoint Energy is a large client of Stone Bond and they use us for their strategic transformation of how they're handling their data.

Gardner: Let’s go back to Noel. Do you have a sense of where companies that are successful at doing this have begun?

Yuhanna: One is taking an issue, like an application-specific strategy, and building blocks on that, or maybe just going out and looking at an enterprise-wide strategy. For the enterprise-wide strategy, I know that some of the large organizations in the financial services, retail, and sales force are starting to embark on looking at all of these data in a more holistic manner:

"I've got customer data that is all over the place. I need to make it more consistent. I need to make it more real-time." Those are the things that I'm dealing with, and I think those are going to be seen more in the coming years.

Obviously, you can’t boil the ocean, but I think you want to start with some data which becomes more valuable, and this comes back to the point that you talked about as the right data. Start with the right data and look at those data points that are being shared and consumed by many users, business users, and that’s going to be valuable for the business itself.

The important thing is also that you're building this block on the solution. You can definitely leverage some existing technologies, if you wanted to. I would definitely recommend now looking at newer technologies, because they definitely are faster. They do a lot of caching. They do a lot of faster integration.

As Todd was mentioning, quicker ROI is important. You don’t have to wait for a year trying to integrate data. So I think those are critical for organizations going forward. But you also have to look at security, availability, and performance. All of these are critical, when you're making decisions about what your architecture is going look like.

We've actually done extensive research over the last four or five years on this topic. If you look at Information Fabric, this is a reference architecture we've told customers to use when you're building a data virtualization yourself. You can build the data virtualization yourself, but obviously it will take a couple of years to build. It’s a bit complex to build, and I think that's why solutions are better at that.

But Information Fabric reports are there. Also, information as a service is something that we've written about—best practices, use cases, and also vendor solutions around this topic of discussion. So information as a service is something that customers could look at and gain understanding.

We have use cases or case studies that talk about the different types of deployments, whether it’s a real-time BI implementations or doing single version of fraud detection, or any other different types of environments they're doing. So we definitely have case studies as well.

There are case studies, reference architectures, and even product surveys, which talk about all of these technologies and solutions.

Gardner: Todd, how about at Stone Bond? Do you have some white papers or research, reports that you can point to in order to help people sort through this and perhaps get a better sense of where your technologies are relevant and what your value is?

Brinegar: We do. On our website, stonebond.com, we have our CTO, Pamela Szabó's, blog, which has a great perspective of data, big data, and the changing face of data usage and virtualization.

I wish everybody would explore the different opportunities and the different technologies that there are for integration and really determine not what you need today—that’s important—but what will you need tomorrow. What’s the tech that you're going to carry forward, and how much is the TCO going to be as you move forward, and really make that value decision past that one specific project, because you're going to live with the solution for a long time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript or download a copy.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 16th December 2011 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2011

Our next VMworld case study interview focuses on how a major game developer in Europe has successfully leveraged the hybrid cloud model.

We’ll learn how SEGA Europe is standardizing its cloud infrastructure across its on-premises operations, as well as with a public cloud provider. The result is a managed and orchestrated hybrid environment to test and develop multimedia games, one that dynamically scales productively to the many performance requirements at hand.

This story comes as part of a special BriefingsDirect podcast series from the recent VMworld 2011 Conference in Copenhagen. The series explores the latest in cloud computing and virtualization infrastructure developments. [Disclosure: VMware is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here to tell us more about how the hybrid approach to multiple, complementary cloud instances is meeting SEGA’s critical development requirements in a new way is Francis Hart, Systems Architect at SEGA Europe, in London. The case study interview is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: Clearly one of the requirements in game development is the need to ramp up a lot of servers to do the builds, but then they sit there essentially unproductive between the builds. How did you flatten that out or manage the requirements around the workload support?

Hart: Typically, in the early stages of development, there is a fair amount of testing going on, and it tends to be quite small—the number of staff involved in it and the number of build iterations.

Going on, when the game reaches to the end of its product life-cycle, we’re talking multiple game iterations a day and the game size has gotten very large at that point. The number of people involved in the testing to meet the deadlines and get the game shipped on date is into the hundreds and hundreds of staff.

Gardner: How has virtualization and moving your workloads into different locations evolved over the years?

Hart: We work on the idea of having a central platform for a lot of these systems. Using virtualization to do that allowed us to scale off at certain times. Historically, we always had an on-premise VMware platform to do this. Very recently, we’ve been looking at ways to use that resource within a cloud to cut down from some of Capex loading but also remain a little bit more agile with some of the larger titles, especially online games that are coming around.

Gardner: We’re all very familiar with the amazing video games that are being created nowadays. And SEGA of course is particularly well-known for the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise going back a number of years. What are some of the other critical requirements that you have from a systems architecture perspective when developing these games?

Hart: We have a lot of development studios across the world. We're working on multiple projects. We need to ensure that we supply them with a highly scalable and reliable solution in order to test, develop, and produce the game and the code in time. ... We’re probably looking at thousands of individual developers across the world.

... The first part was dealing with the end of the process, and that was the testing and the game release process. Now, we’re going to be working back from that. The next big area that we’re actively involved in is getting our developers to develop online games within the hybrid environment.

So they’re designing the game and the game’s back-end servers to be optimal within the VMware environment. And then, also pushing from staging to live is a very simple process using the Cloud Connector.

We're restructuring and redesigning the IT systems within SEGA to be more of a development operations team to provide a service to the developers and to the company.

Gardner: How did you start approaching that from your IT environment, to build the right infrastructure?

Hart: One of the first areas we targeted very early on was the last process in those steps, the testing, arguably one of the most time-consuming processes within the development cycle. It happens pretty much all the way through as well to ensure that the game itself behaves as it should. It’s tested, and the customer gets the end-user experience they require.

The biggest technical goal that we had for this is being able to move large amounts of data, un-compiled code, from different testing offices around the world to the staff. Historically we had some major issues in securely moving that data around, and this is what we started looking into cloud solutions for this.

For very, very large game builds, and we're talking game builds above 10 gigabytes, it ended up being couriered within the country and then overnight file transfer outside of the country. So, very old school methods.

We needed both to secure that up to make sure we understood where the game builds were, and also to understand exactly which version each of the testing offices was using. So it’s gaining control, but also providing more security.

Gardner: So we’re seeing a lot more of the role-play games (RPG) types of games, games themselves in the cloud. That must influence what you're doing in terms of thinking about your future direction.

Hart: Absolutely. We’ve been looking at things like the hybrid cloud model with VMware as a development platform for our developers. That's really what we're working on now. We've got a number of games in the pipeline that have been developed on the hybrid cloud platform. It gives the developers a platform that is exactly the same and mirrored to what it would eventually be in the online space through ISPs like Colt, which should be hosting the virtual cloud platform.

And one of the benefits we're seeing in the VMware offering is that regardless of what data center in the world is the standard platform, it also allows us to leverage multiple ISPs, and hopefully gain some cost benefits from that.

Very early on we were in discussions with Colt and also VMware to understand what technology stack they were bringing into the cloud. We started doing a proof of concept with VMware and a professional services company, and together we were able to come over a proof of concept to distribute our game testing code, which previously was a very old-school distribution system. So anything better would improve the process.

There wasn't too much risk to the company. So we saw the opportunity to have a hybrid cloud set up to allow us to have an internal cloud system to distribute the codes to the majority of UK game testers and to leverage high bandwidth between all of our sites.

For the game testing studios around Europe and the world, we could use a hosted version of the same service which was up on the Colt Virtual Cloud Director (VCD) platform to supply this to trusted testing studios.

Gardner: When you approach this hybrid cloud model, what about managing that? What about having a view into what’s going on so that you know what aspects of the activity and requirements are being met and where?

Hart: The virtual cloud environment of vCloud Director has a web portal that allows you to manage a lot of this configuration in a central way. We’re also using VMware Cloud Connector, which is a product that allows you to move the apps between different cloud data centers. And doing this allows us to manage it at one location and simply clone the same system to another cloud data center.

In that regard, the configuration very much was in a single place for us in the way that we designed the proof of concept. It actually helped things, and the previous process wasn’t ideal anyway. So it was a dramatic improvement.

One of the immediate benefits was around the design process. It's very obvious that we were tightening up security within our build delivery to the testing studios. Nothing was with a courier on a bike anymore, but within a secured transaction between the two offices.

Also from a security perspective, we understood exactly what game assets and builds were in each location. So it really helped the product development teams to understand what was where and who was using what, and so from a risk point of view it’s greatly reduced.

In terms of stats and the amount of data throughput, it’s pretty large, and we’ve been moving terabytes pretty much weekly nowadays. Now we’re going completely live with the distribution network.

So it’s been a massive success. All of the UK testing studios are using the build delivery system day to day, and for the European ones we’ve got about half the testing studios on board that build delivery system now, and it’s transparent to them.

VMware was very good at allowing us to understand the technology and that's one of the benefits of working with a professional services reseller. In terms of gotchas, there weren't too many. There were a lot of good surprises that came up and allowed us to open the door to a lot of other VMware technologies.

Now, we're also looking at alternating a lot of processes within vCenter Orchestrator and other VMware products. They really gave us a good stepping stone into the VMware catalogue, rather than just vSphere, which we were using previously. That was very handy for us.

Gardner: I’d like to just pause here for a second. Your use of vSphere 4.1 must have been an important stepping stone to be able to have the dynamic ability to ramp up and down your environments, your support infrastructure, but also skills.

Hart: Absolutely. We already have a fair footprint in Amazon Web Services (AWS), and it was a massive skill jump that we needed to train members of the staff in order to use that environment. With the VMware environment, as you said, we already have a large amount of skill set using vSphere. We have a large team that supports our corporate infrastructure and we've actually got VMware in our co-located public environment as well. So it was very, very assuring that the skills were immediately transferable.

Gardner: Now that you've done this, any words of wisdom, 20/20 hindsight, that you might share with others who are considering moving more aggressively into private cloud, hybrid cloud, and ultimately perhaps the full PaaS value?

Hart: Just get some hands-on experience and play with the cloud stack from VMware. It’s inexpensive to have a go and just get to know the technology stack.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript or download a copy.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 15th December 2011 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2011

You don’t need to go very far in IT nowadays to find people who are diligently working to do more with less, even as they're working to transform and modernize their environments.

One way to keep the interest high—and those operating and investment budgets in place—is to show fast results, and then use that to prime the pump for even more improvement—and even more funding—with perhaps even growing budgets.

The latest BriefingsDirect discussion then explores how to build quick data center project wins, by leveraging project tracking and scorecards, as well as by developing a common roadmap for both facilities and IT infrastructure.

We'll hear from a panel of HP experts on some of their most effective methods for fostering consolidation and standardization across critical IT tasks and management. This is the second in a series of podcasts on data center transformation (DCT) best practices and is presented in conjunction with a complementary video series.

With us now to explain how these solutions can drive successful data center transformation is our panel, Duncan Campbell, Vice President of Marketing for HP Converged Infrastructure and small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs); Randy Lawton, Practice Principal for Americas West Data Center Transformation & Cloud Infrastructure Consulting at HP, and Larry Hinman, Critical Facilities Consulting Director and Worldwide Practice Leader for HP Critical Facility Services and HP Technology Services. The panel is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Campbell: We've seen that when a customer is successful in breaking down a large project into a set of quick wins, there are some very positive outcomes from that.

Number one, it breeds confidence, and this is a confidence that is actually felt within the organization, within the IT team, and into the business as well. So it builds confidence both inside and outside the organization.

The other key benefit is that when you can manifest these quick wins in terms of some specific return on investment (ROI) business outcome, that also translates very nicely as well and gets a lot of key attention, which I think has some downstream benefits that actually help out the team in multiple ways.

It's not just about attracting the best talent and executing well, but it's about marketing the team’s results as well.

One of the benefits in that is that you can actually break down these projects just in terms of some specific type of wins. That might be around standardization, and you can see a lot of wins there. You can quickly consolidate to blades. You can look at virtualization types of quick wins, as well as some automation quick wins.

We would advocate that customers think about this in terms of almost a step-by-step approach, knocking that down, getting those quick wins, and then marketing this in some very tangible ways that resonate very strongly.

Gardner: When you start to develop a cycle of recognition, incentives, and buy-in, we could also start to see some sort of a virtuous adoption cycle, whereby that sets you up for more interest, an easier time evangelizing, and so on.

Campbell: A virtuous cycle is well put. That really allows the team to get the additional green light to go to the next step in terms of their blueprint that they are trying to execute on. It gets a green light also in terms of additional dollars and, in some cases, additional headcount to add to their team as well.

What this does is, and I like this term the virtuous cycle, not only allows you to attract key talent, but it really allows you to retain folks. That means you're getting the best team possible to duplicate that, to get those additional wins, and it really does indeed become a virtuous cycle.

A good example is where we have been able to see a significant total cost of ownership (TCO) type of savings with one of our customers, McKesson, that in fact was taking one of these consolidated approaches with all their development tools. They saw considerable savings, both in terms of dollars—over $12.9 million—as well as a percentage of TCO savings that was upwards of 50 percent.

When you see tangible exciting numbers like that, that does grab people’s attention and, you bet, it becomes part of the whole social-media fabric and people want to go to a winner. Success breeds success here.

Lawton: Many of the transformation programs we engage in with our customers are substantially complex and span many facets of the IT organization. They often involve other vendors and service providers in the customer organization.

So there’s a tremendous amount of detail to pull together and organize in these complex engagements and initiatives. We find that there’s really no way to do that, unless you have a good way of capturing the data that’s necessary for a baseline.

It’s important to note that we manage these programs through a series of phases in our methodology. The first phase is strategy and analysis. During that phase, we typically run a discovery on all IT assets that would include the data center, servers, storage, the network environment, and the applications that run on those environments.

From that, we bridge into the second phase, which is architect and validate, where we begin to solution out and develop the strategies for a future-state design that includes the standardization and consolidation approaches, and on that begin to assemble the business case. In a detailed design, we build out those specifications and begin to create the data that determines what the future-state transformation is.

Then, through the implementation phase, we have detailed scorecards that are required to be tracked to show progress of the application teams and infrastructure teams that contribute to the program in order to guarantee success and provide visibility to all the stakeholders as part of the program, before we turn everything over to operations.

During the course of the last few years, our services unit has made investments in a number of tools that help with the capture and management of the data, the scorecarding, and the analytics through each of the phases of these programs. We believe that helps offer a competitive advantage for us and helps enable more rapid achievement of the programs from our customer perspective.

In these complex engagements it’s normally some time before there are quick-win type of achievements that are really notable.

For example, in the HP IT transformation program we undertook over several years back through 2008, we were building six new data centers so that we could consolidate 185 worldwide. So it was some period of time from the beginning of the program until the point where we moved the first application into production.

All along the way we were scorecarding the progress on the build-out of the data centers. Then, it was the build-out of the compute infrastructure within the data centers. And then it was a matter of being able to show the scorecarding against the applications, as we could get them into the next generation data centers.

If we didn't have the ability to show and demonstrate the progress along the way, I think our stakeholders would have lost patience or would not have felt that the momentum of the program was going on the kind of track that was required. With some of these tools and approaches and the scorecarding, we were able to demonstrate the progress and keep very visible to management the movements and momentum of the program.

A very notable example is one of our telecom customers we worked with during the last year and finished a program earlier this year. The company was purchasing the assets of another organization and needed to be able to clone the applications and infrastructure that supported business processes from the acquired company.

Within the mix of delivery for stakeholders in the program, there were nine different companies represented. There were some outsourced vendors from the application support side in the acquiree’s company, outsourcers in the application side for the acquiring company, and outsourcers in the data centers that operated data center infrastructure and operations for the target data centers we were moving into.

What was really critical in pulling all this together was to be able to map out, at a very detailed level, the tasks that needed to be executed, and in what time frame, across all of these teams.

The final cutover migration required over 2,500 tasks across these 9 different companies that all needed to be executed in less than 96 hours in order to meet the downtime window of requirements that were required of the acquiring company’s executive management.

It was the detailed scorecarding and operating war rooms to keep those scorecards up to date in real-time that allowed us to be able to accomplish that. There’s just no possible way we would have been able to do that ahead of time.

Gardner: Has there usually been a completely separate direction for facilities planning in IT infrastructure? Why was that the case, and why is it so important to end that practice?

Hinman: If you look over time and over the last several years, everybody has data centers and everybody has IT. The things that we've seen over the last 10 or 15 years are things like the Internet and criticality of IT and high density and all this stuff that people are talking about these days. If you look at the ways companies organized themselves several years ago, IT was a separate organization, facilities was a separate organization, and that actually still exists today.

One of the things that we're still seeing today is that, even though there is this push to try to get IT groups and facilities organizations to talk and work each other, this gap that exists between truly how to glue all of this together.

If you look at the way people do this traditionally—and when I say people, I'm talking about IT organizations and facilities organization—they typically will model IT and data centers, even if they are attempting to try and glue them together, they try to look at power requirements.

So we took this whole complex framework and data center program and broke it into four key areas. It looks simplistic in the way we've done this, and we have done this over many, many years of analysis and trying to figure out exactly what direction we should take. We've actually spun this off in many directions a few times, trying to continually make it better, but we always keep coming back to these four key profiles.

Business and risk is the first profile. IT architecture, which is really the application suite, is the second profile. IT infrastructure is the third. Data center facilities is the fourth.

One of the things that you will start to hear from us, if you haven’t heard it already via the data center transformation story that you guys were just recently talking about, is this nomenclature of IT plus facilities equals the data center.

Look at that, look at these four profiles, and look at what we call a top-down approach, where I start to get everybody synchronized on what risk profiles are and tolerances for risk are from an IT perspective and how to run the business, gluing that together with an IT infrastructure strategy, and then gluing all that into a data center facility strategy.

What we found over time is that we were able to take this complex program of trying to have something predictable, scalable, all of the groovy stuff that people talk about these days, and have something that I could really manage. If you're called into the boss’s office, as I and others have been over the many years in my career, to ask what’s the data center going to look like over the next five years, at least I would have some hope of trying to answer that question.

One of the the big lessons learned for us over the years has been this ability to not only provide this kind of modeling and predictability over time for clients and for customers. We had to get out of this mode of doing this once and putting it on a shelf, deploying a future state data center framework, keep the client pointing in the right direction.

The data gets archived, and they pick it up every few years and do it again and again and again, finding out that a lot of times there's an "aha" moment during those periods, the gaps between doing it again and again.

We've taken all of our modeling tools and integrated them to common databases, where now we can start to glue together even the operational piece, of data center infrastructure management (DCIM), or architecture and infrastructure management, facilities management, etc., so now the client can have this real-time, long-term, what we call a 10-year view of the overall operation.

So now, you can do this. You get it pointing the right direction, collect the data, complete the modeling, put it in the toolset, and now you have something very dynamic that you can manage over time. That's what we've done, and that's where we have been heading with all of our tools and processes over the last two to three years.

Gardner: I also remember with great interest the news from HP Discover in Las Vegas last summer about your EcoPOD and the whole POD concept toward facilities and infrastructure. Does that also play a part in this and perhaps make it easier when your modularity is ratcheted up to almost a mini data center level, rather than at the server or rack level?

Hinman: With the various what we call facility sourcing options, which PODs are certainly one of those these days, we've also been very careful to make sure that our framework is completely unbiased when it comes to a specific sourcing option.

What that means is, over the last 10 plus years, most people were really targeted at building new green-field data centers. It was all about space, then it became all about power, then about cooling, but we were still in this brick and mortar age, but modularity and scalability has been driving everything.

With PODs coming on the scene with some of the other design technologies, like multi-tiered or flexible data center, what we've been able to do is make sure that our framework is targeted at almost a generic framework where we can complete all the growth modeling and analysis, regardless of what the client is going to do from a facilities perspective.

It lays the groundwork for the customer to get their arms around all of this and tie together IT and facilities with risk and business, and then start to map out an appropriate facility sourcing option.

We find these days that POD is actually a very nice fit with all of our clients, because it provides high density server farms, it provides things that they can implement very quickly, and gets the power usage effectiveness (PUE) and power and operational cost down. We're starting to see that take a stronghold in a lot of customers.

Gardner: As we begin to wrap up, I should think that these trends are going to be even more important, these methods even more productive, when we start to factor in movement toward private cloud. Any thoughts about how scorecards and tracking will be even more important in the future, as we move, as we expect we will, to a more cloud-, mobile-, and eco-friendly world?

Lawton: In a lot of ways, there is added complexity these days with more customers operating in a hybrid delivery model, where there may be multiple suppliers in addition to their internal IT organizations.

Just like the example case I gave earlier, where you spread some of these activities not only across multiple teams and stakeholders, but also into separate companies and suppliers who are working under various contract mechanisms, the complexity is even greater. If that complexity is not pulled into a simplified model that is beta driven, that is supported by plans and contracts, then there are big gaps in the programs.

The scorecarding and data gathering methods and approaches that we take on our programs are going to be even more critical as we go forward in these more complex environments.

Operating the cloud environments simplifies things from a customer perspective, but it does add some additional complexities in the infrastructure and operations of the organization as well. All of those complexities add up too, meaning that even more attention needs to be brought to the details of the program and where those responsibilities lie within stakeholders.

Gardner: Larry Hinman, we're seeing this drive toward cloud. We're also seeing consolidation and standardization around data center infrastructure. So perhaps more large data centers to support more types of applications to even more endpoints, users, and geographic locations or business units. Getting that facilities and IT equation just right becomes even more important as we have fewer, yet more massive and critical, data centers involved.

Hinman: Dana, that's exactly correct. If you look at this, you have to look at the data center facilities piece, not only from a framework or model or topology perspective, but all the way down to the specific environment.

It could be that based on a specific client’s business requirements and IT strategy that it will require possibly a couple of large-scale core data centers and multiple remote sites and/or it could just be a bunch of smaller types of facilities.

It really depends on how the business is being run and supported by IT and the application suite, what the tolerances for risk are, whether it’s high availability, synchronous, all the groovy stuff, and then coming up with a framework that matches all those requirements that it’s integrating.

We tell clients constantly that you have to have your act together with respect to your profile, and start to align all of this, before you can even think about cloud and all the wonderful technologies that are coming down the pike. You have to be able to have something that you can at least manage to control cost and control this whole framework and manage to a future-state business requirement, before you can even start to really deploy some of these other things.

So it all glues together. It's extremely important that customers understand that this really is a process they have to do.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript or download a copy.

By: Phil Lewis, Business Consulting Director, UKIMEA, infor Posted: 13th December 2011 Copyright infor © 2011

Integration: noun, an act or instance of combining into an integral whole.

A lot of people in business hate the software that runs their company. Executives grudgingly accept the shortcomings of their software because they feel they have few practical alternatives. Many have come to think enterprise software is necessarily painful. And that pain usually stems from the fact that systems A, B, and C simply refuse to get along. As a result, pulling disparate software systems into a cohesive whole that serves the business has been an elusive objective of IT departments for years. 

But isolated applications written in proprietary languages need not be tolerated. For a business to operate at the speed it needs to function, processes have to be quick and comprehensive. This means the software that enables - and in many cases controls - those processes, has to be linked together. There is no better demonstration of this than the moment those links break and complex, interdependent business processes grind to a halt.

In the worst case scenario a business may be unable to ship product or to invoice customers. Cash flow can be interrupted. Or the hundreds of operational reports, executive dashboards and daily operating metrics that steer a business become useless. The systems and dashboards all glean data from the diverse software applications the business runs and when the software is not integrated, that business is flying blind.

At the other end of the scale, a small lack of integration can still have profound, detrimental effects. Users often have to move from one application to another to find all the information they need to make a good decision. Alternatively, they can’t search for data across corporate software applications as easily as they can find information on the Internet or use their office software with the same ease they’ve come to expect in consumer applications. And, despite the rise of the mobile age, many users still cannot work on a smartphone when they’re away from their desk. These all damage productivity, make it harder for employees to do their job and cause delays in key processes. And they all stem from a lack of integration.

So the question is not ‘why integrate?’ but ‘how to integrate best?’ 

Lost in translation: middleware 1.0
Middleware began as an obvious answer to the issue of integrating software. It is a technical layer of software that users rarely notice. Like the pipes in plumbing, the function of middleware is to make connections. It enables separate software applications to connect and work together in ways that make them more productive. For example, middleware manages the way data flows from one application to another and the way screens present themselves to viewers across different software.

Middleware began with the creation of custom-written code that translates from one application to the next – delivering ‘point-to-point’ integration. This soon developed into an array of sophisticated products that often rivalled the complexity of the applications being interfaced.

However middleware presents many challenges. It is notoriously difficult to install, time-consuming to implement, and cumbersome to maintain. For example, middleware from one leading software provider comes on a set of more than 70 disks. It can take three weeks of IT effort to implement it properly.

Once installed, middleware itself can become just as demanding as the software it is designed to connect. Each time an IT organisation modifies or upgrades a software application, the change may affect the way it communicates with other applications - the integration has “broken.” Broken integration prevents an application from communicating with the other systems around it and of course then mandates an update of the middleware.

Because applications from different vendors tend to be updated on un-coordinated schedules, IT departments face a tough dilemma. They can upgrade each application whenever an update becomes available - committing a great deal of money and resources that provide no business benefit beyond keeping the software running as it did.

Alternatively the IT department can postpone software upgrades as long as possible. This spares the investment in labour for maintaining integration, but it also denies business users the benefit of functional improvements that come with new releases.

So how does a business strike the balance between ensuring integration without becoming a slave to it?

Loose fit – middleware revisited
Firstly, the coupling between applications needs to be loose, without sacrificing the security and integrity offered by tightly coupled integration. In the vast majority of cases many software applications can be ‘loosely coupled’, delivering secure integration and meaningful, actionable data to the user.

This can be based on an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB), which transmits common business language documents between applications, based on OAGIS messaging standards. For those less technically minded, picture a postal service sending purchase orders, sales orders or delivery documents around the departments of an organisation because each document has a tag written in a common language that explains what the document is and what it should do. Adding an intelligent workflow to route these documents whilst monitoring processes to identify and report on exceptions delivers a first round of additional value to the business.

Once this is in place, a range of benefits can be drawn from intelligently integrated applications. Users should be able to search for any data element including, for example, customer name, contact name, invoice number, work order, etc. This is currently difficult because most enterprise applications have their own data structures and don’t enable data to be shared across applications unless a master data warehouse is created – often a big and costly job that should not be necessary with intelligent integration.

Proactive searching capability is the next step. Keywords or data elements can be tracked across all the business applications in play at a company. When these data elements pop up, a proactive search capability can then alert the user via email, SMS or even Twitter every time it senses a process or a status change that involves the defined data element. For example, a salesperson could set up the system to watch for the name of a client. The system would then alert the sales person in real time whenever the company has received a purchase order from that client, has shipped an order, cut an invoice or received payment.

Integration also enables contextual information. By assessing where the user is - in a work process - the system can present information that’s appropriate at that moment. The system can automatically display business intelligence, content, and messaging at the precise time it is needed without the user looking for it; it appears on the screen before the user even realises it would be helpful.

Lastly, integration can also facilitate mobile capabilities. The use of a company’s enterprise systems, without needing access to a desktop computer, is one of the next big jumps in progress. Completing expense reports while standing in line waiting to board a plane, or checking order status when visiting with a customer from a phone, tablet computer or laptop, saves time and boosts productivity.

Intelligent integration is vital for those businesses looking to gain competitive advantage in the current economy. Moving faster and working smarter than the competition is no longer top of the ‘nice to have’ pile – it is top of the survival list. And in order to do this, software across the business must come together and yield insight, deliver value and drive growth.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 8th December 2011 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2011

Embarcadero Technologies, a provider of database and application development software, recently announced AppWave, a free platform that provides self-service, one-click access to PC software within organizations for business PCs and even personal employee laptops.

Available via a free download, the AppWave platform gives users access to more than 250 free PC productivity apps for general business, marketing, design, data management, and development including OpenOffice, Adobe Acrobat Reader, 7Zip, FileZilla, and more.

AppWave users also can add internally developed and commercial software titles, such as Adobe Creative Suite products and Microsoft Visio, for on-demand access, control, and visibility into software titles they already own. [Disclosure: Embaradero Technologies is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

The so-called app store model, pioneered by Apple, is rapidly gaining admiring adopters thanks to its promise of reducing cost of distribution and of updates—and also of creating whole new revenue streams and even deeper user relationships.

As mobile users rapidly change the way the world accesses applications, data and services, the app store model is changing expectations and behaviors. And this is a good lesson for enterprises.

App stores work well for both users and providers, internal or external. The users are really quite happy with ordering what they need on the spot, as long as that process is quick, seamless, and convenient.

As with SOA registries, it now makes sense to explore how such "stores" can be created quickly and efficiently to distribute, manage, and govern how PC software is distributed inside of corporations.

The AppWave platform provides business users ways to quickly build productivity, and speed-to-value benefits for PC-based apps. Such approaches form an important advance as organizations pursue more efficient ways to track, manage, and deliver their worker applications, and bill for them based on actual usage.

Easily consumed
The AppWave platform converts valued, but often cumbersome, business software into easily consumed and acquired "apps," so business users don't have to wait in line for IT to order, install, and approve the work tools that they really need without delay.

With AppWave, companies have a consumer-like app experience with the software they commonly use. With rapid, self-service access to apps, and real-time tracking and reporting of software utilization, the end result is a boost in productivity and lowering of software costs. Pricing to enable commercial and custom software applications to run as AppWave apps starts at $10 to $400 per app.

Increasing demand for consumer-like technology experiences at work has forced enterprises to face some inconvenient truths about traditional application delivery models. Rather than wait many months for dated applications that take too long to install manually on request, business managers and end users alike are seeking self-provisioning alternatives akin to the consumer models they know from their mobile activities.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 6th December 2011 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2011

HP, at the Discover 2011 Conference in Vienna last week, announced a wide range of new Cloud Solutions designed to advance deployment of private, public and hybrid clouds for enterprises, service providers, and governments. Based on HP Converged Infrastructure, the new and updated HP Cloud Solutions provide the hardware, software, services and programs rapidly and securely deliver IT as a service.

I found these announcements a clearer indicator of HP's latest cloud strategy, with an emphasis on enabling a global, verticalized and marketplace-driven tier of cloud providers. I've been asked plenty about HP's public cloud roadmap, which has been murky. This now tells me that HP is going first to its key service provider customers for data center and infrastructure enablement for their clouds.

This makes a lot of sense. The next generation of clouds—and I'd venture the larger opportunity once the market settles—will be specialized clouds. Not that Amazon Web Services, Google, and Rackspace are going away. But one-size-fits-all approaches will inevitably give way to specialization and localization. Telecos are in a great position to step up and offer these value-add clouds and services to their business customers. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

And HP is better off providing the picks and shovels to them in spades, than to come to market in catch-up mode with plain vanilla public cloud services under its own brand. It the classic clone strategy that worked for PCs, right? Partnerships and ecosystem alliances are the better way. A good example is the partnership announced last week with Savvis.

HP’s new offerings address the key areas of client needs—building differentiated cloud offerings, consuming cloud services from the public domain, and managing, governing and securing the entire environment. This again makes sense. No need for channel conflict on cloud services between this class of nascent cloud providers and the infrastructure providers themselves.

Expanding the ecosystem
Among the announcements was an expansion of the cloud ecosystem with new partners, offerings and programs:

• New HP CloudSystem integrations with Alcatel-Lucent will enable communications services providers to deliver high-value cloud services using carrier-class network and IT by automating the provisioning and management of cloud resources.
• HP CloudAgile Service Provider Program offers service providers expanded sales reach, an enhanced services portfolio and an accelerated sales cycle through direct access to HP’s global sales force. HP has expanded the program with its first European partners and with new certified hosting options that enable service providers to deliver reliable, secure private hosted clouds based on HP CloudSystem.
• HP CloudSystem Matrix 7.0, the core operating environment that powers HP CloudSystem, enables clients to build hybrid clouds with push-button access to externally sourced cloud-based IT resources with out-of-the-box “bursting capability.” This solution also includes automatic, on-demand provisioning of HP 3PAR storage to reduce errors and speed deployment of new services to just minutes.
• The HP Cloud Protection Program spans people, process, policies and technologies to deliver a comparable level of security for a hybrid cloud as a private internet-enabled IT environment would receive. The program is supported by a Cloud Protection Center of Excellence that enables clients to test HP solutions as well as partner and third-party products that support cloud and virtualization protection.

Enterprise-class services
New and enhanced HP services that provide a cloud infrastructure as a service to address rapid and secure sourcing of compute services include:

• HP Enterprise Cloud Services – Compute which automates distribution of application workloads across multiple servers to improve application performance. Clients also can improve data protection through new backup and restore options while also provisioning and managing additional virtual local area networks within their cloud environment. A new HP proof-of-concept program allows clients to evaluate the service for existing workloads prior to purchase.
• HP Enterprise Cloud Services for SAP Development and Sandbox Solution enable clients to evaluate and prototype functionality of SAP enterprise resource planning software via a virtual private cloud, using a flexible, consumption-based model.

Guidance and training
HP has also announced guidance and training to transform legacy data centers for cloud computing:

• Three HP ExpertONE certifications – HP ASE Cloud Architect, HP ASE Cloud Integrator and HP ASE Master Cloud Integrator, which encompass business and technical content.
• Expanded HP ExpertONE program that includes five of the industry’s largest independent commercial training organizations that deliver HP learning solutions anywhere in the world. The HP Institute delivers an academic program for developing HP certified experts through traditional two- and four-year institutions, while HP Press has expanded self-directed learning options for clients.
• HP Cloud Curriculum from HP Education Services offers course materials in multiple languages covering cloud strategies. Learning is flexible, with online virtual labs, self study, classroom, virtual classroom and onsite training options offered through more than 90 HP education centers worldwide.
• Driven by HP Financial Services, HP Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Cloud Roundtables help CFOs understand the benefits and risks associated with the cloud, while aligning their organizations’ technology and financial roadmaps.
• HP Storage Consulting Services for Cloud, encompassing modernization and design, enable clients to understand their storage requirements for private cloud computing as well as develop an architecture that meets their needs.
• HP Cloud Applications Services for Windows Azure accelerate the development or migration of applications to the Microsoft Windows Azure platform-as-a-service offering.

A recording of the HP Discover Vienna press conference and additional information about HP’s announcements at its premier client event is available at www.hp.com/go/optimization2011.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 5th December 2011 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2011

The latest BriefingsDirect podcast discussion centers on how new data and analysis approaches are significantly improving IT operations monitoring, as well as providing stronger security.

The conversation examines how AccelOps has developed technology that correlates events with relevant data across IT systems, so that operators can gain much better insights faster, and then learn as they go to better predict future problems before they emerge. That's because advances in big data analytics and complex events processing (CEP) can come together to provide deep and real-time, pattern-based insights into large-scale IT operations.

Here to explain how these new solutions can drive better IT monitoring and remediation response—and keep those critical systems performing at their best—is Mahesh Kumar, Vice President of Marketing at AccelOps. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: AccelOps is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: Is there a fundamental change in how we approach the data that’s coming from IT systems in order to get a better monitoring and analysis capability?

Kumar: The data has to be analyzed in real-time. By real-time I mean in streaming mode before the data hits the disk. You need to be able to analyze it and make decisions. That's actually a very efficient way of analyzing information. Because you avoid a lot of data sync issues and duplicate data, you can react immediately in real time to remediate systems or provide very early warnings in terms of what is going wrong.

The challenges in doing this streaming-mode analysis are scale and speed. The traditional approaches with pure relational databases alone are not equipped to analyze data in this manner. You need new thinking and new approaches to tackle this analysis problem.

Gardner: Also for issues of security, often as trying different types of attacks. So this needs to be in real-time as well?

Kumar: You might be familiar with advanced persistent threats (APTs). These are attacks where the attacker tries their best to be invisible. These are not the brute-force attacks that we have witnessed in the past. Attackers may hijack an account or gain access to a server, and then over time, stealthily, be able to collect or capture the information that they are after.

These kinds of threats cannot be effectively handled only by looking at data historically, because these are activities that are happening in real-time, and there are very, very weak signals that need to be interpreted, and there is a time element of what else is happening at that time. This too calls for streaming-mode analysis.

If you notice, for example, someone accessing a server, a database administrator accessing a server for which they have an admin account, it gives you a certain amount of feedback around that activity. But if on the other hand, you learn that a user is accessing a database server for which they don’t have the right level of privileges, it may be a red flag.

You need to be able to connect this red flag that you identify in one instance with the same user trying to do other activity in different kinds of systems. And you need to do that over long periods of time in order to defend yourself against APTs.

Gardner: It's always been difficult to gain accurate analysis of large-scale IT operations, but it seems that this is getting more difficult. Why?

Kumar: If you look at trends, there are on average about 10 virtual machines (VMs) to a physical server. Predictions are that this is going to increase to about 50 to 1, maybe higher, with advances in hardware and virtualization technologies. The increase in density of VMs is a complicating factor for capacity planning, capacity management, performance management, and security.

In a very short period of time, you have in effect seen a doubling of the size of the IT management problem. So there are a huge number of VMs to manage and that introduces complexity and a lot of data that is created.

Cloud computing is another big trend. All analyst research and customer feedback suggests that we're moving to a hybrid model, where you have some workloads on a public cloud, some in a private cloud, and some running in a traditional data center. For this, monitoring has to work in a distributed environment, across multiple controlling parties.

Last but certainly not the least, in a hybrid environment, there is absolutely no clear perimeter that you need to defend from a security perspective. Security has to be pervasive.

Given these new realities, it's no longer possible to separate performance monitoring aspects from security monitoring aspects, because of the distributed nature of the problem. ... So change is happening much more quickly and rapidly than ever before. At the very least, you need monitoring and management that can keep pace with today’s rate of change.

The basic problem you need to address is one of analysis. Why is that? As we discussed earlier, the scale of systems is really high. The pace of change is very high. The sheer number of configurations that need to be managed is very large. So there's data explosion here.

Since you have a plethora of information coming at you, the challenge is no longer collection of that information. It's how you analyze that information in a holistic manner and provide consumable and actionable data to your business, so that you're able to actually then prevent problems in the future or respond to any issues in real-time or in near real-time.

You need to nail the real-time analytics problem and this has to be the centerpiece of any monitoring or management platform going forward.

Gardner: So we have the modern data center, we have issues of complexity and virtualization, we have scale, we have data as a deluge, and we need to do something fast in real-time and consistently to learn and relearn and derive correlations.

It turns out that there are some advances in IT over the past several years that have been applied to solve other problems that can be brought to bear here. You've looked at what's being done with big data and in-memory architectures, and you've also looked at some of the great work that’s been done in services-oriented architecture (SOA) and CEP, and you've put these together in an interesting way.

Kumar: Clearly there is a big-data angle to this.

Doug Laney, a META and a Gartner analyst, probably put it best when he highlighted that big data is about volume, the velocity or the speed with which the data comes in and out, and the variety or the number of different data types and sources that are being indexed and managed.

For example, in an IT management paradigm, a single configuration setting can have a security implication, a performance implication, an availability implication, and even a capacity implication in some cases. Just a small change in data has multiple decision points that are affected by it. From our angle, all these different types of criteria affect the big data problem.

There are a couple of approaches. Some companies are doing some really interesting work around big-data analysis for IT operations.

They primarily focus on gathering the data, heavily indexing it, and making it available for search, thereby derive analytical results. It allows you to do forensic analysis that you were not easily able to with traditional monitoring systems.

The challenge with that approach is that it swings the pendulum all the way to the other end. Previously we had very rigid, well-defined relational data-models or data structures, and the index and search approach is much more of a free form. So the pure index-and-search type of an approach is sort of the other end of the spectrum.

What you really need is something that incorporates the best of both worlds and puts that together, and I can explain to you how that can be accomplished with a more modern architecture. To start with, we can't do away with this whole concept of a model or a relationship diagram or entity relationship map. It's really critical for us to maintain that.

I’ll give you an example. When you say that a server is part of a network segment, and a server is connected to a switch in a particular way, it conveys certain meaning. And because of that meaning, you can now automatically apply policies, rules, patterns, and automatically exploit the meaning that you capture purely from that relationship. You can automate a lot of things just by knowing that.

If you stick to a pure index-and-search approach, you basically zero out a lot of this meaning and you lose information in the process. Then it's the operators who have to handcraft these queries to have to then reestablish this meaning that’s already out there. That can get very, very expensive pretty quickly.

Our approach to this big-data analytics problem is to take a hybrid approach. You need a flexible and extensible model that you start with as a foundation, that allows you to then apply meaning on top of that model to all the extended data that you capture and that can be kept in flat files and searched and indexed. You need that hybrid approach in order to get a handle on this problem.

Gardner: Why do you need to think about the architecture that supports this big data capability in order for it to actually work in practical terms?

Kumar: You start with a fully virtualized architecture, because it allows you not only to scale easily ... but you're able to reach into these multiple disparate environments and capture and analyze and bring that information in. So virtualized architecture is absolutely essential.

Maybe more important is the ability for you to auto-correlate and analyze data, and that analysis has to be distributed analysis. Because whenever you have a big data problem, especially in something like IT management, you're not really sure of the scale of data that you need to analyze and you can never plan for it.

Think of it as applying a MapReduce type of algorithm to IT management problems, so that you can do distributed analysis, and the analysis is highly granular or specific. In IT management problems, it's always about the specificity with which you analyze and detect a problem that makes all the difference between whether that product or the solution is useful for a customer or not.

A major advantage of distributed analytics is that you're freed from the scale-versus-richness trade-off, from the limits on the type of events you can process. If I wanted to do more complex events and process more complex events, it's a lot easier to add compute capacity by just simply adding VMs and scaling horizontally. That’s a big aspect of automating deep forensic analysis into the data that you're receiving.

I want to add a little bit more about the richness of CEP. It's not just around capturing data and massaging it or looking at it from different angles and events. When we say CEP, we mean it is advanced to the point where it starts to capture how people would actually rationalize and analyze a problem.

The only way you can automate your monitoring systems end-to-end and get more of the human element out of it is when your CEP system is able to capture those nuances that people in the NOC and SOC would normally use to rationalize when they look at events. You not only look at a stream of events, you ask further questions and then determine the remedy.

To do this, you should have a rich data set to analyze, i.e. there shouldn’t be any hard limits placed on what data can participate in the analysis and you should have the flexibility to easily add new data sources or types of data. So it's very important for the architecture to be able to not only event on data that is stored in traditional models or well-defined relational models, but also event against data that’s typically serialized and indexed in flat file databases.

Gardner: What's the payoff if you do this properly?

Kumar: It is no surprise that our customers don’t come to us saying we have a big data problem, help us solve a big data problem, or we have a complex event problem.

Their needs are really around managing security, performance and configurations. These are three interconnected metrics in a virtualized cloud environment. You can't separate one from the other. And customers say they are so interconnected that they want these managed on a common platform. So they're really coming at it from a business-level or outcome-focused perspective.

What AccelOps does, under the covers, is apply techniques such as big-data analysis, complex driven processing, etc., to then solve those problems for the customer. That is the key payoff—that customer’s key concerns that I just mentioned are addressed in a unified and scalable manner.

An important factor for customer productivity and adoption is the product user-interface. It is not of much use if a product leverages these advanced techniques but makes the user interface complicated—you end up with the same result as before. So we’ve designed a UI that’s very easy to use, requires one or two clicks to get the information you need; a UI-driven ability to compose rich events and event patterns. Our customers find this very valuable, as they do not need super-specialized skills to work with our product.

What we've built is a platform that monitors data center performance, security, and configurations. The three key interconnected metrics in virtualized cloud environments. Most of our customers really want that combined and integrated platform. Some of them might choose to start with addressing security, but they soon bring in the performance management aspects into it also. And vice versa.

And we take a holistic cross-domain perspective—we span server, storage, network, virtualization and applications. What we've really built is a common consistent platform that addresses these problems of performance, security, and configurations, in a holistic manner and that’s the main thing that our customers buy from us today.

Most of our customers start off with the free trial download. It’s a very simple process. Visit www.accelops.com/download and download a virtual appliance trial that you can install in your data center within your firewall very quickly and easily.

Getting started with the AccelOps product is pretty simple. You fire up the product and enter the credentials needed to access the devices to be monitored. We do most of it agentlessly, and so you just enter the credentials, the range that you want to discover and monitor, and that’s it. You get started that way and you hit Go.

The product then uses this information to determine what’s in the environment. It automatically establishes relationships between them, automatically applies the rules and policies that come out of the box with the product, and some basic thresholds that are already in the product that you can actually start measuring the results. Within a few hours of getting started, you'll have measurable results and trends and graphs and charts to look at and gain benefits from it.

Gardner: It seems that as we move toward cloud and mobile that at some point or another organizations will hit the wall and look for this automation alternative.

Kumar: It’s about automation and distributed analytics and about getting very specific with the information that you have, so that you can make absolutely more predictable, 99.9 percent correct of decisions and do that in an automated manner. The only way you can do that is if you have a platform that’s rich enough and scalable and that allows you to then reach that ultimate goal of automating most of the management of these diverse and disparate environments.

That’s something that's sorely lacking in products today. As you said, it's all brute-force today. What we have built is a very elegant, easy-to-use way of managing your IT problems, whether it’s from a security standpoint, performance management standpoint, or configuration standpoint, in a single integrated platform. That's extremely appealing for our customers, both enterprise and cloud-service providers.

I also want to take this opportunity to encourage those of your listening or reading this podcast to come meet our team at the 2011 Gartner Data Center Conference, Dec. 5–9, at Booth 49 and learn more. AccelOps is a silver sponsor of the conference.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript or download a copy.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 1st December 2011 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2011

Welcome to a special BriefingsDirect podcast series coming to you from the HP Discover 2011 Conference in Vienna. We’re exploring some major case studies from some of Europe’s leading enterprises.

Our next customer case study interview highlights how a shift from a technology emphasis to a business services delivery emphasis has created significant improvements for a large telecommunications provider, Vodafone. We'll see how a series of innovative solutions and an IT transformation approach to better support business benefits Vodafone, their internal users, and their global customers.

To learn more, we’re here with Shane Gaffney, Head of IT operations for Vodafone Ireland, based in Dublin. The interview is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gaffney: Back in summer of 2010, when we looked at the business perception of the quality of service received from IT, the confidence was lower than we’d like in terms of predictable and optimal service quality being provided.

There was a lack of transparency. Business owners didn’t fully understand what quality was being received and they didn’t have simple meaningful language that they were receiving from IT operations in terms of understanding service quality: good, bad, or indifferent.

Within IT operations, as a function, we also had our own challenges. We were struggling to control our services. We were under the usual pressure that many of our counterparts face in terms of having to do more with less, and downward pressure on cost and headcount. We were growing a dynamic complex IT estate, plus customers are naturally becoming ever more discerning in terms of their expectations of IT.

So with that backdrop, we knew we needed to take some radical steps to really drive our business forward. Vodafone is Ireland’s leading telecommunications operator. We have in excess of 2.4 million subscribers, about 1,300 employees in a mixture of on-premise and cloud operations. I mentioned the complex and dynamic IT estate that we manage. To put a bit of color around that, we’ve got 230 applications, about 2,500 infrastructure nodes that we manage either directly or indirectly—with substantial growth in traffic, particularly the exponential growth in the telecom data market.

Gardner: What does this get for you if you do it right? What is it that you've been able to attain by shifting your emphasis to the business services level? What’s the payoff?

Gaffney: We've seen a 66 percent reduction in customer lost hours year on year from last summer to this. We’ve also seen a 75 percent reaction in mean time to repair or average service restoration time.

Another statistic I'd call out briefly is that, at the start of this process, we were identifying root cause for incidents that were occurring in about 40–50 percent of cases on average. We’re now tracking consistently between 90–100 percent in those cases and have thereby been able to better understand, through our capabilities and tools, what’s going on in the department and what’s causing issues. We consequently have a much better chance of avoiding repetition in those issues impacting customers.

At a customer satisfaction level, we’ve seen similar improvements that correlate with the improved operational key performance indicators (KPIs). From all angles, we’ve thankfully enjoyed very substantial improvements. If we look at this from a financial point of view, we’ve realized a return on investment (ROI) of 300 percent in year one and, looking solely at the cost to fix and the cost of failure in terms of not offering optimal service quality, we’ve been able to realize cost savings in the region of €1.2 million OPEX through this journey.

Gardner: Let me just dig into that ROI. That’s pretty amazing, 300 percent ROI in one year. And what was that investment in? Was that in products, services, consulting, how did you measure it?

Gaffney: Yes, the ROI is in terms of the expenditure that would have related primarily to our investment in the HP product portfolio over the last year as well as a smaller number of ancillary solutions.

The payback in terms of the benefits realized from a financial perspective that relate to the cost savings associated with having fewer issues and, in the event where we have issues, the ability to detect those faster and spend less labor investigating and resorting issues, because the tools, in effect, are doing a lot of that legwork and much of the intelligence is built in to that product portfolio.

[Another way] we measure success, is we try to take a 360 degree view of our service quality. So we have a comprehensive suite of KPIs at the technology layer. We also do likewise in terms of our service management and establishing KPIs and service level agreements (SLAs) at the service layer. We've then taken a look at what quality looks like in terms of customer experience and perception, seeking to correlate metrics between these perspectives.

As an example, we routinely and rigorously measure our customer net promoter score, which essentially assesses whether the customers, based on their experience, would recommend our products and services to others.

[Lastly, we also] build confidence within the team in terms of having a better handle on the quality of service that we’re offering. Having that commercial awareness really does drive the team forward. It means that we’re able to engage with our customers in a much more meaningful way to create genuine value-add, and move away from routine transactional activity, to helping our customers to innovate and drive business forward.

We’ve certainly enjoyed those type of benefits through our transformation journey by automating a lot of the more core routine and repeatable activity, facilitating focus on our relationship with our customers in terms of understanding their needs and helping them to evolve the business.

Gardner: How do you, at a philosophical level, bridge the continuum among and between technology and the other softer issues like culture to obtain these benefits?

Gaffney: The first thing we did was engage quite heavily with all of our business colleagues to define a service model. In essence what we were looking at there was having our business unit owners define what services were important to them at multiple levels down to the service transactions, and defining the attributes of each of those services that make them successful or not.

Once we had a very clear picture of what that looked like across all business functions, we used that as our starting point to be able to measure success through the customer eyes.

That's the focus and continues to be the core driver behind everything else we do in IT operations. We essentially looked to align our people, revamp our processes, and look at our end-to-end tool strategy, all based around that service model.

The service model has enforced a genuine service orientation and customer centricity that’s driven through all activities and behaviors, including the culture within the IT ops group in how we service customers. It’s really incorporating those commercial and business drivers at the heart of how we work.

Without having a consolidated or rationalized suite of tools, we found previously that it's very difficult to get control of our services through the various tiers. By introducing the HP Application Performance Management tools portfolio, there are a number of modules therein that have allowed us to achieve the various goals that we’ve set to achieve the desired control.

Essentially, the service model is defined at a helicopter view, which is really what’s important to our respective customers. And we’ve drilled down into a number of customer or service-oriented views of their services, as well as mapping in, distilling, and simplifying the underlying complexities and event volumes within our IT estate.

Gardner: I suppose this would be a good time to step back and take a look at what you actually do have in place. What specifically does that portfolio consist of for you there at Vodafone Ireland?

Gaffney: We have a number of modules in HP's APM portfolio that I'll talk about briefly. In terms of looking to get a much broader and richer understanding of our end-user experience which we lacked previously, we’ve deployed HP’s Business Process Monitors (BPMs) to effectively emulate the end-user experience from various locations nationwide. That provides us with a consistent measure and baseline of how users experience our services.

We’ve deployed HP Real User Monitoring (RUM), which gives us a comprehensive micro and macro view of the actual customer experience to complement those synthetic transactions that mimic user behavior. Those two views combined provide a rich cocktail for understanding at a service level what our customers are experiencing.

We then looked at events correlation. We were one of the first commercial customers to adopt HP’s BSM version 9.1 deployment, which gives us a single pane of glass into our full service portfolio and the related IT infrastructure.

Looking a little bit more closely at BSM, we've used HP’s Discovery and Dependency Mapping Advanced (DDMa) to build out our service model, i.e. effectively mapping our configuration items throughout the estate, back up to that top-down service view. DDMa effectively acts as an inventory tool that granularly links the estate to service. We’ve aligned the DDMa deployment with our service model which, as I mentioned earlier, is integral to our transformation journey.

Beyond that, we’ve looked at HP’s Operations Manager i (OMI) capability, which we use to correlate our application performance and our system events with our business services. This allows our operators to reduce a lot of the noisy events by distilling those high-volume events into unique actionable events. This allows operators to focus instead on services that may be impacted or need attention and, of course, our customers and our business.

We’ve gone farther and looked at ArcSight Logger, software which we’ve deployed to a single location that collects logged files throughout our estate. This allows us to quickly and easily search across all logged files for abnormalities that might be related to a particular issue.

By integrating ArcSight Logger with OMI—and I believe we’re one of the first HP customers to do this—we’ve enriched operator views with security information as well as the hardware, OS, and application layer events. That gives us a composite view of what’s happening with our services through multiple lenses, holistically across our technology landscape and products and services portfolio.

Additionally, we’ve used HP’s Operations Orchestration to automate many of our routine procedures and, picking up on the ROI, this has allowed us to free up operators’ time to focus on value-add and effectively to do more with less. That's been quite a powerful module for us, and we’ve further work to exploit that capability.

The last point to call out in terms of the HP portfolio is we’re one of the early trialists of HP’s Service Health Analyzer. A year ago, we were to a degree reactive in terms of how we provided service. At this point, we’re proactive in how we manage services.

Service Health Analyzer will allow us to move to the next level of our evolution, moving toward predictive service quality. I prefer to call the Service Health Analyzer our “crystal ball,” because that’s essentially what we’re looking at. It’s taking trends that are occurring with the services of transaction, and predicting what's likely to happen next and what may be in jeopardy of breaking down the line, so you can take early intervention and remedial action before there’s any material impact on customers.

We’re quite excited about seeing where we can go there. One of the sub-modules of Service Health Analyzer is Service Health Reporter, and that’s a tool that we expect to act as our primary capacity planning capability across a full IT estate going forward.

Throughout our implementation, partnership was a key ingredient to success. Vodafone had the business vision and appetite to evolve. HP provided the thought leadership and guidance. And, Perform IT, HP's partner, brought hands-on implementation and tuning expertise into the mix.

One of our core principles throughout this journey has been to offer full transparency to our customers in terms of the services they receive and enjoy from us. On one hand, we provide the BSM console to all of our customers to allow them to have a view of exactly what the IT teams see, but with a service orientation.

We’re actually going a step further and we’re building out a cloud-based service portal that takes a rich feed in from the full BSM portfolio, including the modules that I've called out earlier. It also takes feeds in from a remedy system, in order to get the view of core processes such as incident management, problem management, change management.

Bringing all of that information together gives customers a comprehensive view of the services they receive from IT operations. That's our aim -- to provide customers with everything they need at their fingertips.

It's essentially providing simple and meaningful information with customized views and dynamic drill-down capabilities, so customers can look at a very high level of how the services are performing, or really drill into the detail, should they so desire. The portal, we believe, is likely to act as a powerful business enabler. Ultimately, we believe there's opportunity to commercialize or productize this capability down the line.

Gardner: Any recommendations now that you've been through this yourself?

Gaffney: For customers embarking on this type of transformation initiative, first off, I would suggest: engage with your customers. Speak with your customers to deeply understand their services, and let them define what success looks like.

Look to promote quick wins and win-wins. Look at what works for the IT community and what works for the customer. Both are equally important. Buy-in is required, and people across those functions all need to understand what success looks like, and believe in it.

I would recommend taking a holistic approach from a couple of angles. Don’t just look at your people, technology, or processes, but look at those collectively, because they need to work in harmony to hit the service quality sweet spot. Holistically, it's important to prepare your strategy, but look top down from the customer view down into your IT estate and vice versa, mapping all configuration items back into those top level services.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript or download a copy.

By: Louella Fernandes, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 25th November 2011 Copyright Quocirca © 2011

Nearly every enterprise – including commercial businesses, educational institutions and government organisations – relies on printing to support essential business processes, whether it is back-office operations such as accounting or payroll or front-office activities such as sales and marketing.

Regardless of how dependent an organisation is on printing, IT departments struggle with similar management challenges: providing reliable print services that meet organisational expectations while containing operational costs.

Too often, organisations own a broad range of print, copier, scanner and fax equipment, often from different vendors, requiring different software, consumables and supplies. Devices may often be outdated and inefficient, and few organisations know how many assets they have, how they are being used, and how much it costs to own, maintain and operate them.

This makes it increasingly difficult to optimise efficiency and control costs, and creates a huge IT and administration headache. Organisations facing staff shortages or lacking the correct technology expertise do not have the resources and skills to keep on top of print management issues, leaving them exposed to spiralling print costs, reduced productivity and increased risk due to unprotected devices.

This has prompted many businesses to move to a managed print service (MPS) to ensure more efficient and effective print infrastructure operation and management, from the office to the print room.

A managed print environment can deliver strategic business advantage, supporting cost reduction imperatives and environmental demands along with improved compliance and reduced risk. Today, the strongest uptake of MPS has been among large enterprises (1000+ employees). Our recent research suggests that half of European large enterprises have implemented or are piloting MPS.

The emergence of independent MPS providers that offer vendor-agnostic, best-of-breed technology, software and services is promising to expand the penetration of MPS beyond the exclusive domain of large enterprises.

This channel provides an important role in delivering impartial assessment services and unbiased MPS recommendations. Services such as multivendor break-fix, support and supplies replenishment enable organisations to protect existing hardware investments rather than moving immediately to a standardised print environment.

By retaining the flexibility to add devices from multiple vendors, independent MPS providers can innovate with the latest technology and introduce new capabilities independently of any single incumbent printer or copier supplier.

While hardware vendors will have a vested interest in moving the customer to a standardised environment, most of the major MPS vendors are able to support and manage a multivendor environment at the initial stages of an MPS engagement, sweating the assets as needed.

Not many organisations operate a standardised fleet at the outset. It is therefore vital to select an MPS provider that can provide an impartial assessment of the print environment.

However, if an organisation is planning to move to a standardised environment, a hardware-centric MPS may be the best approach. This can be supplied by a hardware vendor, SI or independent MPS provider. Many hardware vendors will use channel partners to deliver MPS midmarket.

Vendor-neutral providers can often negotiate the best prices on equipment and supplies, delivering quality at lower cost.

It is in the interest of an independent MPS provider to offer the right device for the purpose, regardless of brand. While a single-vendor strategy forces an enterprise to settle for a single vendor's offer for each area of the enterprise, a multivendor strategy enables a true best-of-breed approach across the organisation.

Pricing for traditional MPS contracts is often based on minimum volumes. We have found that is the top inhibitor of MPS adoption. Independent MPS providers often use different pricing models such as pay-per-print, so customers do not pay for pages they have not printed.

Although hardware vendors have been the predominant MPS suppliers for decades, the market is at a tipping point, evolving to encompass a wider range of providers. Independent firms should take advantage, particularly if they have the resources and infrastructure to design and deploy MPS.

This window of opportunity is limited, though: the technology that enables independent MPS providers to move up the MPS stack is also available to competitors such as SIs, managed services providers and hardware vendors, which are using the same or similar technology to move down the stack.

As MPS providers look to gain further mid-market traction, we expect further consolidation in the market. Specifically, we expect hardware vendors to acquire more independent providers to strengthen their multivendor MPS delivery and service capabilities. A report is here.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 18th November 2011 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2011

Most enterprises, service providers and governments have ramped-up their use of virtualization over the past several years, with many impressive results. Those paybacks can only continue, however, if the overall service and support of these complex and dynamic environments keeps pace.

The problem of effectively troubleshooting issues across virtualized data centers consisting of many products from many suppliers is daunting. But there's an added element. The stakes have never been higher for keeping applications and business up and running. Indeed, a businesses' IT systems are, increasingly, the actual business itself. It's hard to separate them.

HP has made the service and support of global virtualization market leader VMware implementations a top priority. Keeping virtualized servers that support mission-critical applications and databases at top levels of performance 24 x 7 is a much different problem than for maintaining physical servers in traditional configurations. [Disclosure: HP and VMware are both sponsors of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Indeed, advanced and pervasive virtualization and cloud computing trends are driving the need for a better, holistic approach to IT support and remediation. And, while the technology to support and fix these virtualized environments is essential, the people, skills and knowledge to manage these systems is perhaps the most decisive element of ongoing performance success.

Live discussion
To find out more, I'll be moderating a live deep-dive discussion on Dec. 7, with a group of HP experts to explore how to make the most of the available people, technology and processes to provide an insurance policy against failure.

Overall, you'll hear recommendations for how IT support can and should be done—even amid a rapidly changing IT landscape of virtualized, hybrid and cloud computing. First in the hour-long multi-media presentation is the inside story of how modern service and support works from one of HP's top services experts, Cindy Manderson, Technical Solutions Consultant for Complex Problem Resolution & Quality for VMware Products, who has 27-plus years experience with HP, and eight-plus years supporting VMware.

She will provide a short overview on the HP/VMware relationship and how the HP/VMware software support model uniquely enables always-on support for enterprises, service providers and governments. She’ll also present several case studies of how the HP Call Center global support process has solved problems in VMware environments.

After Cindy's chat, viewers will be invited to participate in the interactive questions and answer session with actual HP VMware experts. Moreover, both questions and answers will be automatically translated into 13 languages to demonstrate how service and support services know no boundaries, time zones or language barriers.

Leading these interactive sessions to answer the audience's questions live will be several additional HP/VMware support experts, including Patrick Lampert, a Critical Service Senior Technical Account Manager and Team Leader responsible for delivery and management of VMware Technical Services for Fortune 500 HP Custom Mission Critical Service Customers.

He'll be joined by Sumithra Reddy, Virtualization Engineer with HP Technology Services in the Global Competency Center, a 27-year veteran of software support, with a current focus on VMware. Other experts will join from Europe and Asia.

Register to reserve a place for this free HP Expert Chat on Dec. 7.

In summary, attendees will see how the breadth of virtualization is extending from servers to networks, desktop clients, storage, and mobile clients. All must operate in conjunction with the rest, especially as virtualized workloads come and go based on dynamic demand. This means that understanding how VMware and its ecosystem of vendors supporting these advanced environments relate. Problems in these environments must be solved from an over-view and neutral perspective, with all the interdependencies considered and managed.

So join the online presentation, discussion and question-and-answer sessions in nearly any major language worldwide. This is the first in a series of Expert Chats that I'll be moderating and that will tackle serious IT issues, with full global language support. Look for more more information on future discussions here.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 16th November 2011 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2011

Our next VMworld case study interview focuses on how Germany’s largest travel agency has remade their PC landscape across 580 branch offices using virtual desktops. We’ll learn how Germany’s DER Deutsches Reisebüro redefined the desktop delivery vision and successfully implemented 2,300 Windows XP desktops as a service.

This story comes as part of a special BriefingsDirect podcast series from the recent VMworld 2011 Conference in Copenhagen. The series explores the latest in cloud computing and virtualization infrastructure developments. [Disclosure: VMware is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here to tell us what this major VDI deployment did in terms of business, technical, and financial payoffs is Sascha Karbginski, Systems Engineer at DER Deutsches Reisebüro, based in Frankfurt. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: Why were virtual desktops such an important direction for you? Why did it make sense for your organization?

Karbginski: In our organization, we’re talking about 580 travel agencies all over the country, all over Germany, with 2,300 physical desktops, which were not in our control. We had life cycles out there of about 4 or 5 years. We had old PCs with no client backups.

The biggest reason is that recovery times at our workplace were 24 hours between hardware change and bringing back all the software configuration, etc. Desktop virtualization was a chance to get the desktops into our data center, to get the security, and to get the controls.

DER in Germany is the number one in travel agencies. As I said, we're talking about 580 branches. We’re operating as a leisure travel agency with our branches, Atlasreisen and DER, and also, in the business travel sector with FCm Travel Solutions.

Gardner: This is a very IT-intensive business now. Everything in travel is done though networked applications and cloud and software-as-a-service (SaaS) services. So a very intensive IT activity in each of these branches?

Karbginski: That’s right. Without the reservation systems, we can’t do any flight bookings or reservations or check hotel availability. So without IT, we can do nothing.

Gardner: And tell me about the problem you needed to solve. You had four generations of PCs. You couldn’t control them. It took a lot of time to recover if there was a failure, and there was a lot of different software that you had to support.

Karbginski: Yes. We had no domain integration, no control and we had those crashes, for example. All the data would be gone. We had no backups out there. And we changed the desktops about every four or five years. For example, when the reservation system needed more memory, we had to buy the memory, service providers were going out there, and everything was done during business hours.

We now have nearly about 100 percent virtualization. ... So it's about 99 percent virtualization. ... So the data is under our control in the data center, and important company information is not left in an office out there. Security is a big thing.

Gardner: What were some of the things that you had to do in order to enable this to work properly?

Karbginski: There were some challenges during the rollout. The bandwidth was a big thing. Our service provider had to work very hard for us, because we needed more bandwidth out there. The path we had our offices was 1 or 2-Mbit links to the headquarters data center. With desktop virtualization, we need a little bit more, depending on the number of the workplaces and we needed better quality of the lines.

So bandwidth was one thing. We also had the network infrastructure. We found some 10-Mbit half-duplex switches. So we had to change it. And we also had some hardware problems. We had a special multi-card board for payment to read out passports or to read out credit card information. They were very old and connected with PS/2.

So there were a lot of problems, and we fixed them all. We changed the switches. Our service provider for Internet VPN connection brought us more quality. And we changed the keyboards. We don’t need this old stuff anymore.

Gardner: How has this worked out in terms of productivity, energy savings, lowering costs, and even business benefits?

Karbginski: Saving was our big thing in planning this project. The desktops have been running out there now about one year, and we know that we have up to 80 percent energy saving, just from changing the hardware out there. We’re running the Wyse P20 Zero Client instead of physical PC hardware.

We needed more energy for the server side in the data center, but if you look at it, we have 60 up to 70 percent energy savings overall. I think it’s really great.

Gardner: That’s very good. So what else comes in terms of productivity?

Karbginski: In the past, the updates came during the business hours. Now, we can do all software updates at nights or at the weekends or if the office is closed. So helpdesk cost is reduced about 50 percent.

... We're using Dell servers with two sockets, quad-core, 144-gigabyte RAM. We're also using EMC Clariion SAN with 25 terabytes. Network infrastructure is Cisco, based on 10 GB Nexus data center switches. At the beginning the project, we had View 4.0 and we upgraded it last month to 4.6.

Gardner: What were some of the challenges in terms of working this through the people side of the process? We've talked about process, we've talked technology, but was there a learning curve or an education process for getting other people in your IT department as well as the users to adjust to this?

Karbginski: There were some unknown challenges or some new challenges we had during the rollout. For example, the network team. The most important thing was understanding of virtualization. It's an enterprise environment now, and if someone, for example, restarts the firewall in the data center, the desktops in our offices were disconnected.

It's really important to inform the other departments and also your own help desk.

... The first thing that the end users told us was that the selling platform from Amadeus, the reservation system, runs much faster now. This was the first thing most of the end users told us, and that’s a good thing.

The next is that the desktop follows the user. If the user works in one office now and next week in another office, he gets the same desktop. If the user is at the headquarters, he can use the same desktop, same outlook, and same configuration. So desktop follows the user now. This works really great.

Gardner: Looking to the future, are you going to be doing this following-the-user capability to more devices, perhaps mobile devices or at home PCs?

Karbginski: We plan to implement the security gateway with PCoIP support for home office users or mobile users who can access their same company desktop with all their data on it from nearly every computer in the world to bring the user more flexibility.

Gardner: If you were advising someone on what to learn from your experience as they now move toward desktop virtualization, any thoughts about what you would recommend for them?

Karbginski: The most important thing is to get in touch with the other departments and inform them about the thing you're doing. Also, inform the user help desk directly at the beginning of the project. So take time to inform them what desktop virtualization means and which processes will change, because we know most of our colleagues had a wrong understanding of virtualization.

They think that with virtualization, everything will change and we'll need other support servers, and it's just a new thing and nobody needs it. If you inform them what you're doing that nothing will be changed for them, because all support processes are the same as before, they will accept it and understand the benefits for the company and for the user.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod. Read a full transcript or download a copy.