By: Bob Tarzey, Service Director, Quocirca Posted: 1st November 2011 Copyright Quocirca © 2011

People of a certain age often enjoy recalling for younger folk the size of the early mobile phones that were lugged around in the mid-1980s, whilst marvelling at the latest smartphones. These brick-sized devices could not even send text (SMS) messages (the first of which was sent in 1992); they were good for voice only. But, what would it have taken almost three decades ago to have had all the capabilities of a 2011 smartphone based on the available technology of the day?

This was one of the subjects covered in a recent New Scientist article titled “They said it couldn't be done: 7 impossible inventions”. To quote the article:

“The components for the iPhone à la 1985 we've listed so far would fill a large wheelbarrow. But we have left out something important.”

“The processor at the heart of the iPhone 4 can perform up to a billion operations per second (the new iPhone 4S is even zippier). You might have matched that in the mid-80s if you had bought the Cray X-MP, then the world's most powerful supercomputer. But the Cray would have filled an office cubicle and also required an industrial-strength refrigerator to remove the waste heat. So cancel the wheelbarrow. To haul the 1985 iPhone around, we're going to need a truck.”

Interesting stuff, which underlines why the consumerisation of IT has become such a big issue. When I left the academic world for the commercial one in 1986, for the first time in my life, on my desk at work I had dedicated access to a computer (albeit a text-only dumb terminal) which was linked to a network providing me with any information my employer had stored that it felt would be useful to do my job. I also now had a telephone with its own number; my friends and family could now contact me when I was at work (before that hand written letters had been the main method).

The new entrant to the work place now has all this and much, much more in their pocket. This is the issue driving IT consumerisation. Employers can no longer impress new recruits with technology and connectivity, they are more likely to disappoint. Competitive employers today are those that allow their employees to use the advanced technology they have become used to at home in the workplace.

Consumerisation does of course throw up many challenges, not least how data security, contracts and billing are handled. These issues were discussed in a recent free Quocirca report “Carrying the can” sponsored by ttMobiles and the subject of a recent conference organised by the Wireless Improvement Group (WIG). Quocirca’s presentation given at the conference can be downloaded here.

By: Julian Holmes, Co-founder, UPMentors Posted: 18th March 2011 Copyright UPMentors © 2011

A change is taking place in the IT Industry that has a major impact on the way organisations should now look to recruit software development people. The so-called ‘hard skills’—such as an applicant’s technology skills, qualifications, and certifications—should simply be an entry requirement and a greater focus should be placed on the ‘softer skills’.

The core competencies that a recruiter should now be looking for are the behavioural skills. Whilst these are sometimes difficult to extract, a skilled recruiter with a competency-based recruitment method should be able to identify applicants who will not only suit new ways of working but also enhance the team. 

What are the competencies organisations should now be looking for?
Competencies such as a team-player, excellent communication and collaboration skills, results orientated, the ability to pick up new skills quickly, to see the ‘big picture', flexibility, someone who embraces change and a ‘can do’ attitude, to name just a few. Some organisations may already feature these as part of their profiles for candidates, however these should now be a prominent part of the recruitment process, with new employees required to perform each to a high level on a daily basis. 

What is driving the change in focus?
The growing adoption of agile software development practices has significantly changed the way project teams work. No longer are they required to work as technical specialists in silos but are now expected to work in cross-functional teams, often with direct customer contact, to understand the business challenges and to enable them to deliver the right solution.

The success of these agile teams is directly related to the ability of the team to ‘gel’ together to deliver high quality software. This way of working is a significant departure from the traditional approaches to software development. The challenge for HR departments is to strategically align their recruitment policy and practices to support software teams and deliver candidates who will not only fit with the new ways of working, but enhance and develop it further to the benefit of the team, organisation and the customer.

About UPMentors
UPMentors helps organisations to successfully deliver and cope with complex software projects by transforming people’s capabilities. Using a combination of consultancy and specific practices such as knowledge transfer, leading by example, mentoring on-the-ground and various training techniques, UPMentors gives software professionals the capability to work more effectively as part of a team and prevent project failure.

As a trusted external resource, UPMentors challenges the mindset of how training is delivered across the business; it removes unnecessary overheads, company politics and bureaucracy while streamlining the entire software development process. The company specialises in several software development processes, including Agile and Unified Process variations.

Founded in 2007, UPMentors works with large enterprises across a wide range of industry sectors; clients include Capgemini, ING Direct and HM Revenue & Customs.  For further information, please visit www.upmentors.com

By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 19th November 2010 Copyright Quocirca © 2010

Despite the claims of many marketing brochures filled with words ending in ‘-ability’, there are only three real tangible benefits to consider when evaluating a product or service; value, cost and risk. When it comes to turning the bottom line from red to black – as is often the case during recession and government cuts – companies generally look to just one of these – cost cutting.  Its counterpart – value growth – whilst popular during boom years is far harder to find in a downturn. It requires companies, and more often individuals, to go out on a limb; something they are much more wary of as they look to protect their own position.

This leaves the third benefit – risk mitigation. On the face of it this seems a negative subject only to be addressed when something goes horribly wrong.  A catastrophic disk crash introduces many to the concept of regular backups. A security breach highlights the vulnerability of data assets. A volcanic eruption highlights the value of alternatives to air travel and buying comprehensive travel insurance.  Adaptability and flexibility help reduce risk; these ‘-abilities’ in particular can deliver real benefits, allowing agile organisations to pounce on unexpected opportunities as well as stave off unforeseen problems.

Hence, when problems create opportunities, a lack of flexibility can often get in the way of capitalising on them.  An example of this was apparent during the travel crisis as a result of the ash from the Icelandic volcano eruption.  It was thought that some travel operators were profiteering by ramping up the cost of one-way ‘cheap’ tickets by hundreds of pounds.  However, those travelling would have been surprised to see quite a few empty seats on the plane.  Presumably, those with tickets booked as returns but unable to travel on the outward leg didn’t show up, leaving a raft of available seats only identified at the departure gate.  Many companies with tight booking processes appear to have no way of reselling those seats as ‘standby’ on a first come, first served basis at the airport – or over the web.  Filling even 5 extra seats on a plane would have been massively profitable for the airline concerned.  It might be tricky to introduce with current systems, but a more adaptable model of reselling empty seats might have done wonders not only for the bottom line but perhaps also avoiding the negative media perception of air travel that was created by the crisis.

When problems occur, it also leads to a positive view of those who can cope in these sorts of crises – for example, when large numbers of workers were disrupted by apparently unexpected heavy snowfalls in the UK in early 2010 (well, it was in winter).  Mobile phones, laptops and remote access to enterprise systems are all now in widespread use.  Those organisations that had implemented more flexible solutions or worked with more flexible suppliers, were able to manage the sudden increase in user load as everyone equipped to occasionally work remotely did so all at once.

It is not only limitations or constraints in the technology that amplify problems when a glitch occurs, but also lack of flexibility in service offerings, levels and tariffs.  Businesses should no longer simply look for the cheapest options, even during a recession, but those that deliver the best overall value.  This means putting a value on flexibility.

Flexibility can be supported by appropriate use of suitable technology, but it really comes into its own when there is the right commercial framework backing it. No wonder then that ‘as a service’ models are springing up to offer a pay as you go model, where incremental changes in either direction are simpler to make.  Whether we call this cloud, hosted, managed or on demand doesn’t really matter, the value is about pushing the complexity and upfront costs onto someone outside who’s a specialist, and then renting the service back from them.

Need more software licenses to cope with a sudden surge or more bandwidth at the end of the month, or perhaps fewer desks and phones as you’ve moved office workers to a ‘hot-desking’ model? No problem – the service provider will “flex”

This flexibility goes further, as the rented service can be delivered ‘anywhere’, no longer tying its use to specific locations or office premises. Mobile working, not as in working on the move, but moving the place of work, becomes a doddle right?

To a point, but with all of the benefits of flexibility, there has to be some consideration and evaluation of what has been given up to get it.  The main challenge is dealing with a loss of top down control. When something critical is outsourced, hosted on an external server, or available anytime from a cloud at the end of a network cable, can you really trust that the network or service provider can deliver the quality of service you need, or that your data is really secure? These are assurances that must be sought, rather than seeing such services as a money saving exercise, and there are now many companies able to deliver safe, secure and reliable services.

More mobile and flexible working looks on the face of it to benefit both employer and employee, but there are caveats, and again it boils down to quality of service and assurance. Management tools and processes need to evolve to convince some managers that employees are not simply engaging in social network conversations, playing games or surfing the web while ‘working from home’. Similarly employees need to be assured that “off” means “off” and expectations of 24/7 availability, simply because the network is there, are not fair.

Applying suitable metrics for measurement and controls to ensure goals are met will become an increasing challenge in dealing with both employee and service provider flexibility.  The old metrics of hours in the office and narrow objectives will no longer work for many individuals, just as network outages will no longer be sufficient for measuring service provision. Part of the problem in working out new business goal oriented metrics is that companies have been based and built up on a rigid top down hierarchical command and control system.

This is where flexibility still needs to be applied by many organisations. When it is perhaps some of the apparently chaotic concepts that have emerged in IT and communications – the internet, open source, ad hoc collaboration, social networking – will ultimately lead to a new flexibility in management systems.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 17th November 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

The rapidly changing and fast-growing opportunity for more businesses to reach their customers and deliver their services via mobile applications is at a crossroads.

Over just the past two years, the demand for mobile applications on more capable classes of devices, such as smartphones and tablets, has skyrocketed. Now businesses need to figure out how they can get into the action.

Small and medium-size businesses (SMBs) especially need to reevaluate their application development and end-user access strategies to be able to deliver low-cost yet impactful applications to these newer devices. This goes for reaching employees, as well as partners, users, and customers.

Hopefully, there's a shift in the skills required to put these applications on these devices and distribute them. The emphasis on capabilities is moving from hardcore coders -- with mastery of embedded platforms and tools -- to more mainstream graphical and scripting-skilled workers, more power-users than developers.

This sponsored podcast explores how mobile application development and the market opportunity are shifting, and how more businesses can quickly get into the mobile applications game and build out new revenue, share more data, and provide better direct customer access in the process.

Our panel consists of Roger Entner, Senior Vice President and Head of Research and Insights in the Telecom Practice at the Nielsen Co., and Wayne Parrott, Vice President for Product Development at Genuitec. The discussion is moderated by BriefingsDirect's Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Entner: About 50 percent of all devices being sold in the US right now are smartphones. We expect smartphone penetration to be at about 50 percent by the end of next year. Almost 60 percent of smartphone owners are actually using applications. That’s a huge percentage.

We're now at that sweet spot where it makes a lot of sense for businesses to have applications both for their consumers and their employees alike, because there is enough of an addressable base there.

We just launched our second edition of our Mobile Apps Playbook. But to quote numbers from there, year-over-year second quarter '09 to second quarter '10, smartphone penetration in the US went from 16 percent to 25 percent.

Now, we have 3- and 4-inch screens that are actually readable. We're not just merely replicating a desktop experience, but actually tailoring it to the device and working with the strengths of the device rather than with the weaknesses.

The devices that we call now smartphones are little computers that today are as powerful as laptops a few years ago. I always say that this little thing you have in your hands, a smartphone, has far more computing power than was used by NASA to put men safely on the moon and bring them back alive.

Applications becoming easier

And now Apple, Google, Microsoft, and the others, have software development kits (SDKs) out there that make app development a lot easier than it has ever been.

If you have a talented developer or a talented person in your department, he might be able to build that internally. Or, there are now myriad development shops out there that have the capabilities to build applications and charge only a few thousand dollars -- and that's single digit thousand dollars -- to have a capable, usable application.

There are a lot more people who know how to program these things, and have good ideas of applications. There is a really good market out there to put the two together.

Parrott: We’re seeing a big move toward interest in mobile at the development side. What are the factors that’s really led to the explosion of mobile apps? It's not only the smartphones and their capabilities, but we also look at the social changes in terms of behavior.

People more and more have a higher reliance on their smartphone and how they run their lives, whether they are at work or on the move. The idea is that they are always connected. They can always get to the data that they need.

Basically, we're taking their lifestyle away from their desktop and putting it in their pocket as they move around. More and more, we see companies wanting to reach out and provide a mobile presence for their own workforce and for their customers.

The question they ask is, "How do we do that? We already have a web presence. People have learned about our brand, but they can't access this through their smartphones, or the experience is inferior to what they’ve come to expect on the smartphone."

We're seeing a big growth of interest in terms of just getting on to the mobile -- having a mobile presence for the SMBs.

Still a great deal of complexity

If you take a look at the current state of native mobile app development, it's really not much better than it was five years ago. You still see a strong fragmented programming model base, different operating systems, and different hardware capability. It's still a mess. You pretty much have to pick a subset of devices that you want to focus on.

Entner: If we take one little step back, one of the genius things that Apple has done is turn the bookmarks into an application. About 60-70 percent of all applications on the iPhone or an Android are actually glorified HTML ports. So, it's not that difficult or that demanding on the application side.

One new trend is HTML5, which is slowly but surely approaching. There has been no finalized HTML5 standard [from the W3C], but a lot of web browsers, and even mobile web browsers, have now some HTML5 capabilities. And, it will really help in the development cycle for basic applications.

Where HTML5 will not to be able to help us, at least right now, is when we try to take advantage of location-based services because there is no standard yet. They're still arguing about this one, and especially high performance graphics. But, on the standard application, HTML5 will take us miles forward and diminish the difference between the desktop and the mobile environment.

... At the same time, all of the SDKs are getting more powerful and more user-friendly. So, it's moving toward a more harmonized and more rapid development environment.

Parrott: Prior to HTML5 talking about mobile web was pretty much a joke. Mobile web was an afterthought in the phone market. You had these small, dinky displays. Most of them couldn't even render most standard HTML. What's new?

You still see a strong fragmented programming model base, different operating systems, and different hardware capability. It's still a mess. With the advent of the smartphone what you really saw was pretty much the Internet, as you experience it on your desktop, now on to your smartphone, but with even more capability.

Part of it is because HTML5 has stepped back and looked at what the future needed to be for a web programming model. To become more of a common run-time, they had to address some of the key gaps between native hardware, APIs, and web. Much of those have really centered on one of the biggest digs that mobile web had in the old days, when you were doing something, were connected, and then you lost your connectivity.

Out of the box

HTML5, right out of the box, has a specification for how to operate in an online, offline, or disconnected type mode. Another thing was a rendering model, beyond just what you see on your desktop, that actually provides a high-end graphics type capability -- 2D, 3D types of programming. These are things that more advanced programs can take advantage of, but you can build very rich desktop type of experiences on the laptop.

Then, they went beyond what you're used to seeing on your desktop and took advantage of some of the sensors that these phones have now -- accelerometers, location capability, or geolocation. APIs are now emerging as a companion to HTML5, which is a spec that will span across your desktop to the mobile phone. It's a very capable specification.

In addition, there is the movement in terms of the standards body, especially the W3C, to address mobile device API. You will eventually program in a standard way and talk to your contacts list, your cameras, video, recording devices, and things like that. That will soon be available to us in a web programming model.

What used to be exclusively the demand of the hardware API guys to do really low level, high performance bit twiddling is now going to be available to the general web programming masses. That opens up the future for a lot more innovation than what we’ve seen in past.

There is enough HTML5 core already emerging that we could start to program to a subset of that spec and treat it as kind of a common run-time that you would program across pretty much all of the new emerging smartphones as we look forward.

Entner: It's only a matter of when ... HTML5 will come. Apple and Google are at the forefront and are already launching websites and services in it. You can get HTML5 YouTube, HTML5 Google, and even Yahoo mail access. You can have the Apple website in HTML5. It just depends on what is fully supported right now.

Some browsers support it, and some don't yet. On the mobile side, it also fully depends on what is supported. If you have the WebKit engine at the core of the browser that your device is using, HTML5 is pretty widely supported.

Parrott: As we've talked to more-and-more of our SMBs, one thing that stands out is that they don't have a lot of resources. They don't have a huge web department. Their personnel wear a number of hats. Web development is just one of n things that one of the individuals may do in one of these organizations.

At Genuitec, we developed a product called MobiOne Studio. The target user is anyone who has an idea or an vision for a mobile web application or website. MobiOne is geared to provide a whole new intuitive type of experience, in which you just draw what you want. If you can develop PowerPoint presentations, you can create a mobile web application using MobiOne.

You lay out your screens, you pane them all up, and then you wire them together with different types of transitions. From there, you can then immediately generate mobile web code and begin to test it either in the MobiOne test environment, that's an emulated type of HTML5 environment, or you can immediately deploy it through MobiOne to your phone and test it directly on a real device.

If you can develop PowerPoint presentations, you can create a mobile web application using MobiOne.

With MobiOne Studio we recognized that the first thing that most companies want to do is just mobilize, just get a mobile presence, mobilize their websites, and have that capability. As Roger said a while ago, a lot of the apps you see out there are really glorified mobile websites and are packaged up in a binary format.

Second Studio phase

In MobiOne Studio's second phase, once you design and you like what you have, you have a progressive step that you can go from a very portable form to compile it down -- or cross-compile -- from HTML5 to whatever the native requirements are of that particular target app store. So, Google will have their app store, and Apple and RIM each has their own model. They are all fairly different models.

But with HTML5, you can go directly to your customers now. You can market to them directly. It depends on your way of interacting with your customers, but we have seen a number of novel approaches already from some of our customers. When any customer is in your store, you make it very easy for them to access your site, to make them aware of your mobile capabilities, lure them in, and get them connected that way.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Read a full transcript or download a copy. Sponsor: Genuitec. Learn more.

You may also be interested in:

• Rise of WebKit Advances Mobile Web's Role, Opens Huge Opportunity for Enterprise Developers on Devices
• Genuitec Marks Progress with Two Milestone Releases of MyEclipse 6.5 Products
• Genuitec Expands Pulse Provisioning System Beyond Tools to Eclipse Distros, Eyes Larger Software Management Role

By: Gerry Brown, Analyst - Digital Marketing & CRM, Bloor Research Posted: 25th October 2010 Copyright Bloor Research © 2010

Last week I looked at the effect of open source and new agile vendors such as Qliktech on the BI market in the article ‘Is the Traditional BI in decline?’. Is the CRM market similar or different?

As with the BI industry, the heavy boot prints of the large enterprise applications vendors, SAP, Oracle, and Microsoft are all over the CRM industry. Also similar to the BI market, most of the CRM old stagers are still hanging in there, many albeit under new ownership e.g. CDC (Pivotal) Sage (Saleslogix), Pegasystems (Chordiant), Consona (Onyx). The CRM market during the last decade has been a roller-coaster with many vendor casualties, whereas the BI market has grown in a more linear fashion.

The most successful CRM vendor in recent times has been salesforce.com which now has $1.3Bn in revenue, 4,500 employees, and has grown its revenues in the $250–$300m range for each of the last 3 years. Salesforce loves to spend money (c. 50% of its revenues) on sales and marketing, especially for its mega Cloudforce conferences that provide the speaking platform for its charismatic and outspoken CEO, Marc Benioff.

Salesforce is great for the CRM SaaS market and its cousin the open source CRM market in ‘taking on’ the rhetoric of the enterprise vendors. One vendor described Benioff as a ‘lightening rod’ for attracting media attention: “we just enjoy being in the salesforce.com slipstream”.

Unlike BI, where there are relatively few open source vendors, in CRM applications there are at least 60 open source CRM packages regularly downloaded from Sourceforge. The crown prince of the market is SugarCRM.

SugarCRM, like Qliktech in the BI market, is growing revenues at over 50% per annum. It claims 7 million downloads and serves 600,000 end users. 6,000 customers have the ‘paid for’ SugarCRM Professional or Enterprise editions. The Professional edition starts at only $30 per user per month on an annual subscription contract. The new version SugarCRM 6 incorporates an intuitive interface, social CRM and search functions that keep it pretty much in touch with the product developments of the mega vendors.

SugarCRM is a low cost alternative to salesforce.com, Microsoft and Sage for Sales Force Automation (SFA). In addition SugarCRM offers some basic call centre support features and marketing functions such as campaign management. A key strategic question for CRM suppliers is whether to stay focused on the triumvirate of Sales / Marketing / and Customer Support applications? Few, if any, vendors do all 3 of these applications brilliantly today.

The alternative is to branch out wider into integrated Accounting and eCommerce as a SaaS-based small business suite, as Netsuite or up-and-coming UK vendor Brightpearl do. The latter offers the Brightpearl CRM / Accounting / Time Management suite all for just £20 per user per month.

In summary, the CRM market is still growing nicely and is now well out of its early adolescent growing pains. Some segments of the market, such as SFA and marketing campaign management, are starting to look increasingly commodity in nature, as tumbling prices and the many SaaS and open source alternatives are testament. Customers should choose vendors with strong strategies, and who are willing to continuously innovate in products and their own business models in order to remain competitive. Salesforce.com has shown remarkable agility and foresight in this regard to date.

Always a good sign is when the venture capital (VC) community is prepared to sign the cheques. To date, SugarCRM has raised $46 million in VC funding and an IPO in the future seems likely. So maybe the CRM market looks like a pretty good place to be after all.

By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 15th October 2010 Copyright Quocirca © 2010

The term ‘unified communications’ conjures up many meanings, but is most often used by those with software or network assets to sell. Whether it is routers, switches, hubs, directories, phones or high definition video conferencing equipment, the thrust is often the same—we have the hardware to remove complexity from your network and software to unify those different modes of communication that your users ‘enjoy’. Basically it’s the IP dividend of voice over IP (VoIP) mixed with video over IP plus anything else over IP with a bit of contextual status thrown in via ‘presence’.

Sounds good to those managing a complex mix of networks, or those paying for separate forms of connection when they can see what looks like a great big free (or perceived to be free) fat internet pipe that will take all IP traffic. Unify the packets over IP and you’ve unified communications, right?

The problems come when trying to see how users fit into the deal and it does not always end in a fully cross functional, matrix managed, dispersed workforce collaborating all the way across the extended enterprise. The technology is fine, the commercial aspect works, but the social side just does not deliver, because it depends on acceptance, initiative and commitment from the workforce, and generating that takes more work than installing a CD or network appliance.

So how about taking a different approach?

There is much talk about the influx of consumer technology into the workplace, and an interesting area to look at here is social networking. However this time it is not about the use of social networking tools to connect with customers, reinvigorate marketing budgets or make the business look cool. Nor is it about the fears of employees spending so much of their time glued to their social networks that they forget to work, or how to interact with real people; although these issues do merit some attention from organisations.

An aspect of social networking that might catalyse and support the broader adoption of unified communications is the current trend towards ‘social dashboards’. These are coming about partly in recognition that most people like and use a multiplicity of social communications tools—YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, instant messaging, email etc—to hook up with their friends and contacts, yet would like to avoid the complexity of using these as separate applications. A single live ‘portal’ embracing the other tools would be ideal, but who would be the master site/supplier?

It may be too early to narrow down as there have been false dawns and social networking failures, but current players are positioning themselves as ‘accommodating’ as the market evolves. Recent innovations and updates from Microsoft around Live Essentials and the new look Twitter are examples of the trend towards this.

So what is a ‘social dashboard’ and what are the characteristics that have merit for consumers, which might turn out to be a valuable in a business context? There are several recurring themes:

• Feeds – these are live updates, tickers, messages, blogged and tweeted lifestreams or even streaming audio and videos. Ever present, constantly updated without the need for the recipient to make requests.
• Finds – uploaded responses or comment using scraps of information, interesting webpages, uploaded photos and videos can be simply and easily fed in and propagated to all contacts, ‘inline’ and without the need to open new windows or be diverted by separate applications.
• Feedback – instant opinion and comment on feeds and finds from all those in the network, a loose collaboration, trending and sometimes herd-like behaviour in the crowd. Voting and recommendation engines might seem too democratic for business decisions that need top down command and control, but with suitable moderation there may be wisdom in the crowd.
• Filters – the key to making sense of a cacophony of information. Filtering by areas of interest, favouritism dependant on the contact type (e.g. messages from the boss, or the activities of a key customer), current activities or status (do not disturb, busy working, on holiday so friends only etc). Organisations may also be able to push down centralised policies to provide automated filtering and implement security measures to block malware, filter inappropriate content and mitigate risky behaviour or data leakage, as well as permit more personal policies to improve productivity by adapting to ensure information is relevant to the context of the place, time and person.

Finally there is also the underlying ability to grow the network by finding contacts, or suggesting potential friends. When applied with business intelligence, this mechanism of seeking out the right person to contact would be extremely useful in many organisations where the traditional ‘org charts’ are always out of date or the sheer volume of external relationships make the divisions of ‘employee’ and ‘contractor’ meaningless.

Buddy lists and presence directories are already part of many unified communications solutions, but they could go a lot further to envelop the groups, commonalities and relationships that people really build their personal communications networks on. Simply having a directory with phone number, contact details and current status or presence is not enough, and the social network element provides some provenance, knowledge of, or social value of the contact. Social networks have meaning attached to the link as well as the point of the connection.

Many unified communications vendors have overly focused on the networking technology and forgotten the key part of communications; it is about people. Perhaps they could learn something relevant for businesses from social and consumer oriented tools?

By: Simon Holloway, Practice Leader - Process Management & RFID, Bloor Research Posted: 1st October 2010 Copyright Bloor Research © 2010

We all know that Manufacturing is all about products and that you have to keep reinventing your product portfolio to keep ahead in today’s market. Perhaps what it is not so well known is that the majority of R&D products don’t even make the market and of those that do only 1 or 2 really make a worthwhile profit. Therefore product development is a risky business, but one we can’t avoid. So how can we limit the risks and get better control of the process of controlling the life of our products?

Andy Michuda, Chief Executive Officer of Sopheon told me, “Product life cycle management (PLM) is the most vital business process in manufacturing today. A right decision on which product ideas to develop and produce can transform a company’s future. A wrong decision can bring a company to its knees. In the race for growth and profitability, the capacity to understand and act on PLM’s power will separate the winners from the losers”. But what exactly is PLM? There seem to be no standard definitions of PLM—everyone has something slightly different to say. Even the site http://www.product-lifecycle-management.info has a number of different definitions!

Let me give you my condensed definition of PLM. “It is the business process of managing the entire lifecycle of a product from its conception, through design and manufacture, to service and disposal. It integrates people, data, processes and business systems and provides a product information backbone for companies as well as their partners, suppliers and customers.” PLM is first and foremost a business discipline, whose goal is to eliminate waste and improve efficiency, and is considered to be an integral part of the lean production model. However, because of the business complexity and rate of change that requires organizations execute as rapidly as possible, application software is becoming more and more crucial to the success of PLM. It is one of the four cornerstones of a corporation's information technology structure. Shoenhair of Ping, a PTC Customer, supports this view: “PLM can be difficult to measure, but it is absolutely critical to leaning out processes, and critical to improving information flow and control.”

Where do ERP and PLM fit? Most manufacturing companies distinguish two main process chains: the operational process chain and the technical process chain. ERP systems largely address the operational process chain, whereas PLM systems automate and enable predominantly the technical process chain.

Figure 1: ERP and PLM (Source: PLM Technology Guide)

Johan Malmström, PLM Business Development Manager, SAP, emphasised the collaborative nature of PLM, “PLM makes sure that everyone works towards one version of the truth, with clearly defined tasks and responsibilities. It manages the product structure and related information, the usage of this data across the product lifecycle as well as the process of creating this data. Process support includes workflow capabilities, program and project management, resource management etc. to make sure that the correct resources are working on the correct tasks in order to deliver the right products to the market in the right time.”

Michuda explained that PLM is implemented in practice on three different levels, each of which is supported by a different tool set.

• Transactional Processes: Enterprise resource planning (ERP) applications manage transactional processes. They are designed to unify materials planning, purchasing, financial transactions, accounting and reporting into streamlined transactional processes. Supply chain management (SCM) and customer relationship management (CRM) applications also address process needs at this level.
• Technical Data: Computer-aided design (CAD) applications, as well as those related to formula, recipe, or product data management (PDM), are primarily focused on managing the masterfile of descriptive data within the product lifecycle. These PLM systems streamline and continuously improve the processes of defining, designing and producing products, while potentially also supporting aspects of product innovation. They offer collaboration capabilities that enable enterprise-wide sharing of product designs, reducing the chance of design and manufacturing errors.
• Business Information: The business level of PLM deals with business issues around critical business-related decisions within the product lifecycle. At the business level of PLM, the emphasis is on solutions that handle innovation governance issues such as process management, decision support, idea management, product portfolio management, expertise management, and intelligence around markets, competitors and technologies. Regulatory compliance and sustainability that important not only during product innovation but also to effective management of the supply chain are also included within the business level.

So what tools are used in a PLM solution? The PLM Technology Guide shows the core technology of a PLM system and some of the many solutions that can rest on the basic technology. The orange line outlines Product Data Management (PDM), which is typically used for basic CAD file and Data Management.

Figure 2 PLM Functionality Source:  PLM Technology Guide

Who are the main players? The major players in PLM space can be grouped under 3 broad categories:

• PLM product vendors such as Dassault Systemes , PTC ,Siemens, Sopheon, Aras
• The ERP vendors such as Oracle Agile, SAP PLM, Infor PLM, Epicor, IFS
• Consulting & implementation companies such as Accenture, Atos Origin, Capgemini, ITC Infotech, IBM, Infosys, KSA, Wipro and HCL Technologies.

What is coming? Dassault Systemes, on their web site, describe PLM v2 – “PLM 2.0 is a major redefinition of the PLM markets targeting all users creating, consuming and remixing IP. PLM 2.0 is to PLM what Web 2.0 is to the Web, harnessing collective intelligence from online communities. Any user can imagine, share and experience products in the universal language of 3D. PLM 2.0 brings knowledge, from idea to product experience (IP), to life. It merges the real and virtual in an immersive lifelike experience.” SAP’s Malmström sees the following three trends:

• Consumer-Driven Sustainable Innovation: with a focus on developing the right products at the right time in fast innovation cycles.
•  Global Price and Time Pressure: requires development efficiency, sharing of information in dynamic development networks.
• Increasing Product Compliance and Regulations: manage compliance, controls, documentation and visibility.

Mike Spragg, Infor's UK director for the process industries, sees the increase in environmental awareness and the incorporation of the ‘green’ agenda as an area of PLM expansion, “PLM has much to offer manufacturers.  PLM begins at the earliest possible stages of design, meaning these new green considerations are factored in long before products are manufactured and then enter the supply chain. This can save costs that would have to be borne were the products reworked at a later date.”

Deepankar Ghosh, Head – Manufacturing Practice, ITC Infotech, provided a clear idea of the importance of PLM, “PLM industry is comparatively a niche industry which is gaining more currency and acceptance as organizations are realizing the value that the PLM process brings to the table. With an ever increasing pressure on bottom line it is imperative that companies make IT investments where the ROI is not only high but faster. A more informed and demanding customer is seeking not only cheaper but innovative and trendy products more than ever before. For an organization to be ahead of its competition, collaboration across key roles and functions within the company and with its supply chain has become critical. The environment for the PLM practice to grow is just right and we will soon be witnessing an unprecedented interest in this area.”

So, if ERP manages your operations, PLM manages your product portfolio from creation to end of life. My experience of PLM solutions is that they really do provide value—you just need to find the one that best suits your pocket and needs. If that is the case then come along to PLM Connect and find the answer.

By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 28th September 2010 Copyright Quocirca © 2010

When you’re been brought up with some IT industry certainties, such as Moore’s Law of transistor doubling or Metcalfe’s Law of network value, it can be daunting to realise that these laws can have other unintended, but significant, consequences.

Metcalfe’s Law says that the value of a telecoms network increases with the square of the number of connections. Whether that rule is precise or not has been subject of some debate, with various proponents of different formulae, but that is not the point.

It has always been pretty clear from the days of the telegraph to phone, fax, web connection or mobile phone that each of these networks pass some sort of tipping point as the number of users soars when the network becomes mainstream.

However, while the total value of each network grows—and that’s great for all those providing products or services in the supply chain—how does it affect individual users? There is, for each individual, the increasing value in being able to reach more and more contacts within the one medium.

After all, being the only person on the planet with a fax machine is pretty useless, but when there’s a few others it becomes marginally interesting, and when all business associates have one it becomes a powerful tool.

But is there a downside to network connection ubiquity?

Clearly some networks become stretched to breaking point as available resources struggle to cope with the demands of increasing numbers of users.

Some mobile networks in particular have been hard hit, dealing with surges in new users or new mobile application usage, with the iPhone and Android platforms being cases in point.

The problem is, once people have a new, highly flexible tool, it is difficult to predict the variety of innovative uses to which it will be put. 

This issue is especially true of communications devices where it is even harder to predict the speed at which innovation will propagate.

But something other than stretched resources is starting to affect the value of networks: a corollary of Metcalfe’s Law is that the larger the physical network of connection points, the larger the social network of people.

This relationship can prove really useful, as it increases the likelihood for example of someone having an answer to that tricky question, or someone being interested in a particular quirky subject, but it also increases the volume of the banal, irksome, trivial and stupid—in short, the more chaff there is to disguise the wheat.

There are further problems in that some of the rubbish clogging the system can be automatically generated, such as spam or email updates that have been signed up for but later regretted—sometimes referred to as bacon. This rubbish propagates rapidly and it is not at all easy to distinguish from valuable communication.

Whether it is search engine results, friend requests, emails or interstitial web pages, there will be some that are too important to miss hidden amid the noise.

Thus as the physical network continues to grow in size its social value growth is affected by increasing viscosity. If there is wisdom in the crowd, the sheer numbers makes progress towards it feel like running through treacle.

At a personal level the effects are pretty clear: constant interruptions, alerts and messages which we deal with by calling it multi-tasking, endless trawling through search engine hits to try to find the thing we were really looking for and so many emails that we fear going on holiday or mitigate the fear by taking a BlackBerry and not really having a proper break.

In many respects this is analogous to the real-world inefficiencies of meetings having too many attendees or the old adage about a camel being a horse designed by committee. However, in both those instances we have built strategies and tools to cope with their worst effects. 

At least in theory, although many fail to put them into practice, which is why the Video Arts short training film from the 1990s “Meetings bloody meetings” still resonates today.

Now remember that the goal of deploying technology was to be MORE productive, not just to have more prods, dead ducks and activities.

This goal means that some artificial constraints may have to be placed on all of this networking, so that personal as well as corporate productivity does not unduly suffer.

It is unlikely that a binary switch—banning social networking during office hours, switching off corporate mobile email during holidays—will work or even be desirable, but, just like the filters that have been put in place for the unwelcome deluge of spam, something automatic will be required.

There are already some social media and content filtering tools and services available, although mostly emerging from the need to curtail access or protect data. These are generally deployed by IT, network and security specialists and justified on the grounds of reducing risks and vulnerability.

However given the increasing risk to productivity at both a personal and organisational level, a new set of tools—or interfaces to existing filters—needs to emerge to be marketed and sold to the line of business management, human resources and individual employees.

It is no longer a technical sell, but if presented and positioned correctly could be knocking on an open door. A flexible and easy-to-use time management solution for the digital age—perhaps Filofax 2.0?—would be most welcome.

By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 27th September 2010 Copyright Quocirca © 2010

Technology innovation is often hard to demonstrate to those in senior decision-making roles in most organisations, and generally for very straightforward reasons. Many vendors pitch their products or services as being full of benefits, but often these are simply features dressed up with a few marketing buzzwords ending in ‘ability’. The answer to the question ‘what will it do?’ is generally ‘anything’ as those flogging the idea, either from outside or with the help of internal IT champions typically ignore the unspoken part of the question ‘...for me, our company, against the competition, etc’.

It is an issue of putting the innovation into specific context.

In October 1993 the then Anderson Consulting created a dramatic way of doing this for their retail prospects in Europe, through a ‘blue sky thinking’ experience called ‘Smart Store’, built at its office in Windsor, which aimed to transport senior retail executives into the distant future of 2010. The multi-room showcased the impact of technology in a context that would grab and sometimes shock retail executives into action. Many of the concepts, such as self scanning, logistics tagging and tracking, are now pretty much the norm, so it must have been a successful, if rather expensive investment.

While Smart Store showcased other company’s technology innovation to help Anderson Consulting sell services, other centres of innovation and executive briefing centres have been built by technology companies keen to show off their thought leadership. Both IBM and Sun Microsystems developed these sorts of facilities and have tried as hard as possible to justify the generally hidden back end ‘big tin’ with applications and services set in the context of real business.

Although the theatrics rarely meet the impressive standards of Anderson Consulting, some effort still goes into filling the demonstrations with props. It might seem trivial, but there is merit in demonstrating real world examples and doing some sort of scene setting. After all, how many business leaders or managers seeking solutions to specific business problems want to be faced simply by banks of (expensive) IBM and Sun servers?

From a recent visit to Motorola’s innovation centre in Basingstoke it is clear that money had not been frittered away on superfluous theatrics. The markets being targeted and applications shown address down-to-earth everyday business needs, not blue sky concepts. The main room is filled with many diverse communications devices from simple two way radios to smart consoles for forklift trucks; all great examples of Motorola’s innovation and technical prowess, but how do they connect to business?

Rather than looking for props or theatrics, the clues come from Motorola’s recent changes in corporate structure, in particular the decision to spin off the phones division earlier in 2010 and the acquisition of Symbol in 2006.

As the spinoff of the consumer oriented mobile phone part of the company concludes in 2011, what remains is business and public sector organisation focused, covering wireless LAN, drop in cellular networks and mobile devices. Rather than having the generic devices that might be picked up as consumer friendly phones by the average office worker, the new Motorola has large ranges of more specialised devices, some offering voice communications, some mobile data, others converging both. Why? It allows Motorola to provide different devices to target the specific working needs of different groups of workers, with tools that are sometimes rugged, often just robust, but always designed and dedicated to do a particular job—hence the reason there are so many in the innovation centre.

That is all well and good and, to be honest, what you might expect from a large technically driven company with over seventy years of innovation, but while the hiving off is bringing much needed focus, it is the acquisition and subsequent slow absorption of Symbol that turns that focus into revenue. Symbol not only brought smart small IT devices to the radio company, it also introduced an ecosystem of applications, application developers and channel partners.

This has become the driver for much activity and is where the business innovation is happening; developing a mobile application to meet the business process need of an individual worker, blending small robust hardware with the right interface options to fit their role and adding the spice of well engineered radio technology.

If Motorola can stay partner friendly and avoid the arrogance that so often surrounds long term industry players who think they can do it all themselves, this sounds like a recipe for success for all parties involved.

Mobile applications that address business needs rather than massage egos or satisfy gadget lovers will appeal to the business decision makers. That should put Motorola’s mobile innovation into context, and while its innovation centre is not overly theatrical in its presentation, this is not an issue for the practical business needs being addressed.

By: Julian Stuhler, Director, Triton Consulting Ltd Posted: 22nd September 2010 Copyright Triton Consulting Ltd © 2010

In recent years the move to outsource IT or business processes has really taken hold. There are definite benefits to outsourcing all or part of an organisation's database management systems. Access to specialised resources, which may not be available or are in short supply internally, is a major factor.

Rather than outsourcing their IT systems lock stock and barrel, organisations can look to supplement their internal resources with niche technical skills for interim staffing, ad-hoc consultancy or even just as an "insurance policy" back-up. Specialist service providers bring insight into how other companies are solving their business problems. These "war stories" from previous engagements can really help build a customer's knowledge of best practice. Rather than outsourcing to a good "all-rounder", organisations should look to specialist providers for the in-depth technical knowledge required to support mission critical systems.

Lack of skills
An actual lack of skills may well not be the issue. Unless they are moving to a new technology of which the organisation has little experience most organisations will have a good level of skills internally. However, availability of those skills can be an issue. Increasing workloads can often mean that individuals are tasked with ever growing and diverse responsibilities. If this sounds like a familiar scenario in your organisation then you're not alone. In a survey of DBAs by IDUG & CA the most significant database activity undertaken in 07–08 was upgrading the current database — at 67%. Daily maintenance was 56%. Particularly in smaller organisations (1–1000 employees); just 31 % said they were primarily involved in database administration. This means that DBAs are being pulled away from day-to-day maintenance into different projects.

Something has to give. Farming out all or part of the day to day tasks can be a useful way to free up time for a highly skilled team to be more usefully deployed and is almost certainly more cost effective than bringing in an extra team member to take on those tasks.

If the team is lacking skills then most outsourcing service providers can also offer mentoring, knowledge transfer and training solutions as well.

Cover
This one really depends on the size of the existing DBA team. Organisations with really large teams are unlikely to experience real issues with having the right amount of cover out of hours or during peak holiday seasons.

However, for those running smaller teams this can be a real problem. Some organisations are simply coping with what they have and are lucky enough not to have experienced any major issues — yet. It is a fact of life that people take holiday, get sick and have time off to look after children. For smaller teams, managing this can be a minefield. If there is a break in cover IT bosses have to be prepared for the consequences of a major database failure during that time — it could happen and the buck has to stop somewhere.

It is possible for organisations to enhance their existing teams with an out-of-hours only service that kicks in when the team clock off or an ad-hoc service which can be called upon when the team is stretched.

Service providers have SLAs to meet and they don't take annual leave or get sick!

What to look for in a provider

• Cost: Make sure that the service is cost effective for the business needs. How much does the service cost vs the cost of internal DBAs? It is impossible to predict how many hours or calls will be needed so check whether there is a limit to the number of service calls/number of hours available on the contract. What seemed like a good deal initially can end up being more costly than first thought; extra calls or time have to be purchased.
• Skills: This has to be a major consideration. Many companies offer a managed service solution for IT systems. The key, though, is finding the organisation with the specialist knowledge of the particular database software in use to be sure that any issues can be quickly and professionally dealt with.
• Cover: Be sure to find a provider with flexible packages which give the support and cover required. Perhaps cover is only needed out of hours because the in-house DBA team can cope with the day to day management. Or perhaps the system needs the assurance of 24/7 support.
• Proactive vs Reactive: Not all service providers can give proactive support. Looking for a supplier who can provide proactive monitoring means that there is no need to worry about users experiencing issues before it has been flagged to the team.

Specialist service providers bring a new dimension to outsourcing, one that gives organisations the peace of mind that they are working with a provider who really understands and has the skills necessary for the job. Rather than outsourcing to a good "all-rounder", organisations should look to specialist providers for the in-depth technical knowledge required to support mission critical systems.

About Triton
Triton Consulting are Data Management specialists and IBM Premier Business Partners. Specialising in DB2 for both the mainframe and distributed systems, Triton provide a full range of services from consultancy through to education and remote support.

The Remote DBA service allows organisations to benefit from remote DB2 support to suit them - from out of hours only to 24/7 cover. With Consultancy on Demand, organisations can purchase 20, 50 or 100 hours of support which can be used for training, consultancy or to cover absences within the existing DBA team. For more information on Triton visit http://www.triton.co.uk/ManagedServices.php

By: Simon Holloway, Practice Leader - Process Management & RFID, Bloor Research Posted: 21st July 2010 Copyright Bloor Research © 2010

When looking for the right ERP solution, there are numerous candidate solutions to choose from. So how do you differentiate between them to select the right one for you? Well the starting point is to understand your business in terms of its business processes and rules that you use to operate. This might seem a strange statement, but in all my years of consultancy, it has always surprised me how little many organisations really have a good grasp of what makes them tick. In particular, you must understand which processes are key to differentiating yourself from your competition. Now before looking at the market, you need to allocate budget. ERP software is not cheap but, there again, the ROI can be enormous. Now you can look at the market.

Bloor Research has just finished a Market Review of the ERP market, where we looked at some 34 products. What stood out was that all the packages supported the main functionality of running a manufacturing business. So how did differentiation occur? Well the answer was it was down to verticalisation, i.e. support for fabrication, automotive, pharmaceutical, CPG, etc, and to that wonderful term “ease of use”. Phil Nicholls, Managing Director, eMerge Information Technology Ltd told me, “In the cut-throat, competitive and acquisition-laden world of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), there is one attribute that all system suppliers claim. A claim, which is in danger of being so misused that it becomes meaningless. That is User-Friendly”. One solution aimed at the SME market that stood out for me was Priority, which is marketed in the UK by eMerge-IT.

Who produces Priority? Priority is developed by Eshbel, an Israeli software company. The company was founded in 1986 and Priority was first released in 1988. The product is now in its 13th version and there are over 3000 installations around the world. The largest customer has some 1000 seats. It is built on a Microsoft .NET platform and uses Microsoft SQL Server as it DBMS engine (although Oracle is also available). Eshbel has some 80 employees. The product is marketed by a number of distributors across the world, the largest of whom is another Israeli company, Medatech Information Technology Ltd. Medatech have some 170 employees and 15 years experience. In 2001, Medatech set up a UK subsidiary, eMerge-IT, to provide marketing and support for Priority. Emerge-IT is based at Chandlers Ford in Hampshire and has some 20 employees.

In my view an ERP has to provide the following basic modules for a manufacturer:

• Financial management, which should cover not only the basic sales, purchasing and general ledgers but also provide support for Asset Accounting, Financial Consolidation and Financial Control. These need to be associated with financial warehouse capability.

• Customer management, which should cover the ability to set up sales accounts and territories supported by contact management associated with the ability to manage leads and opportunities as well as handle mail shots. There needs to be support for customers to be able to place orders through a web front-end without the involvement of any of the manufacturer’s personnel. In today’s flexible market, price management, with rules for discounting, is a very important piece of functionality. For certain industries rental and promotions management is also important.

• Sales management, which not only has to cover the process of handling all your sales order types, but should also cover estimates and quotes in a similar vein. With main company's sales forces being remote from their base for the majority of the time, there is a need to provide sales force automation capabilities. It is also key to have support for sales literature as well as marketing campaign support. From an analysis viewpoint, for many organisations, analysis by sales channel is important as is pricing analysis and optimization and of course profitability analysis.

• Supplier management, as for customer management, support here is crucial. If you are using 3rd parties to provide logistical support in terms of warehouses and transport then there is a need to be able to incorporate their data into your ERP to be able to get a complete picture. There is a need to support foreign trade as well, of course, for billing and invoicing.

• Production Planning is, of course, what MRP and ERP were designed for. So you should be looking for capacity requirements, materials requirements, sales and operational, shop floor as well as support for ADO. Even for SMEs, there is a need for support for multi-sites and often this is now involved across international borders. The two other services required are support for engineering change management and lean manufacturing. There needs to be a good BI capability to divvy up these plans and simulate changes. The package also needs to be able to handle your type of operations (discrete, process, service, MRO).

• Materials management, which covers all the processing associated with your bill of materials, as well as the movement of goods in to and out of the factory as well as its movement inside the factory complex.

• Operations management; for me this covers all the tasks that are under the control of the Operations Director. This will include quality management with support for customer feedback capture as well as incident reporting and escalation management. For workforce management there needs to be support for task allocation, resource scheduling as well as an interface to HR to obtain absence details.

• Human resource management has four basic strands to support. Firstly there is the support for bringing people into the company, what is often referred to as Onboarding. This becomes associated with the ability to not only create but also maintain employees’ records. The second strand is around career and succession planning including training. The third strand is about payroll expenses and includes attendance recording. The final strand is that there is a portal capability that allows employees to look at and manage certain details themselves; this is often referred to as employee's self service.

• Plant maintenance has often been considered a subsidiary business function in ERP, but in my mind, for a manufacturer, this is a crucial part of managing your assets on the shop floor. For those organisations that manufacture plant and service it, then this component needs to cover spare part inventory control and external location management along with job order control. Plant maintenance helps with lean implementations by allowing you to carry out preventative maintenance.

• Services (after-market) management is a set of business functionality that is becoming more and more important as manufacturers look to adding additional revenue sources to their portfolios. This has been important for certain manufacturing sectors for some time, such as white goods, automotive and aerospace. Sub functions required to be supported are warranty management as well as call management.

• Product lifecycle management is another module that has been seen in the past as a subsidiary one. However, in my view manufacturers only keep going if they are innovative and this means they keep refreshing their product portfolio. PLM is aimed at providing the user with software necessary to control the research and development process of product development.

• Laboratory information systems have become more and more important as manufacturing takes the quality message inherent in lean manufacturing to heart. The module provides support for managing the taking of samples and the testing of those samples.

• Business intelligence is about being in control. All ERP solutions provide a set of data warehouses that are associated with modules in their ERP solutions. However, in addition, manufacturers need to be relating data across these Chinese walls in the package as well take in external data. In today’s world we also have the need to do this in near real-time!

So what makes Priority an interesting ERP for SME manufacturers? Firstly, this is due to breadth of coverage that the package delivers. As can be seen from Figure 1, Priority covers all of the above mentioned functionality and except for PLM does this fully.

Figure 1: Assessment of Business Functionality support of Priority (Source: Bloor Research)

From a finance point of view, Priority provides support for all manufacturing operations with a financial impact to be automatically modelled with cost of goods sold transactions and journal entries. There is full compliance with UK and European tax rules and multi-company environments can be consolidated in a single set of head office company accounts.

Priority provides full support for all production planning, materials management and operations management activities in an agile, fast moving market place. This support works whether a company makes to stock, makes to order, makes to forecast or any other variation of manufacturing regime.

CRM support provides the ability in full from both within conventional sites but also remotely from any location that has access to a telephone line. The web-browser interface brings sales force information on all customer data and contact details. In addition the Marketgate interface provides a web site to allow customers and prospects to place orders and monitor their order progress.

From an HR viewpoint, Priority stores all personnel records and provides record keeping and HR development, career management and candidate selection capabilities. At present there is no support for Payroll although this is being released this year in version 14.

The second reason that SME’s should look at Priority is the ability to add vertical as well as horizontal special modules to the base. Emerge-IT provides, amongst others:

• The Textiles module is an industry-specific module to assist clothing manufacturers to manage their production, sales and inventory according to style, size and colour.
• The Hire module provides specific functionality for the equipment hire industry.
• The Instant Addressing Module makes use of Experian’s QAS system, an address management and identity verification solution. This module is aimed at those organisations who want to be able to generate customer details accurately every time by inputting only the post-code and building name/number. This results in highly accurate address information being automatically generated with the minimum of user input.

Finally you get all this capability at a very good price with localized support from a company that understands not only the technology involved but also the business of manufacturing.

By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 7th July 2010 Copyright Quocirca © 2010

The acceleration of smartphone adoption, increasing use of low cost laptop dongles and the appearance of Wi-Fi in all sorts of devices from smart badges and trackers to tablets and phones, means one thing for networks—lots more data to carry in the air. 

This is a significant issue because despite the advances in wireless network technology—there is no dark fibre in the sky—capacity is limited. With wireline, it is always possible to light existing or dig more fibre or cables into the ground (at a price), but wireless networks are ultimately constrained, and apparently demand, thus far, is not.

It may be that might change. Perhaps users will get bored or their appetite for buying new data-intensive mobile products will diminish? The evidence from recent launches of devices such as Apple’s iPad indicates this is unlikely to be the case.

Or perhaps over time, with increases in mobile network tariffs, demand will be controlled by price—no wireless net neutrality then—but this will still be like trying to keep a pressure cooker lid on with an elastic band. Network operators need to stretch their tariffs and rules from time to time to win over and accommodate new users, devices and applications, in spite of how much network resource they will subsequently consume.

This means there will continue to be pressure on precious spectrum and the rest of the network. Squeezing more data into a finite pipe means compromises, constrictions or caps. Users, however, will not put up with any degradation in the quality of the experience—especially if their work or business depends on it.

The challenges facing mobile cellular networks are complex. Not only with more devices and data consumption, but the usage patterns are becoming harder to predict. When there was only a single application—voice telephony—it was easier to predict how it would be used and the impact this would have on the network. Now a plethora of applications pass data with and without the knowledge of the user, as roaming ‘bill shock’ often demonstrates.

Even with voice, the reasons and opportunities to make calls has accelerated. Despite texting, email and messaging people make mobile phone calls for even the slightest of reasons (“Hello, I’m on the train”) and this is especially noticed when there are many subscribers close together, sharing a common experience—at transport hubs, events or sports venues. This has tested voice networks on many occasions, but subscribers are at least clear that a call is made or not, or has been dropped. With data and applications, the effect of such problems can become even more frustrating.

For business use this is a real issue; if workers or business processes are coming to depend on mobile data access, can organisations truly rely on networks to deliver the right quality of experience? Operators can no longer assume that coverage is enough. They have to measure and test network performance based on the experience of the user, and this means end-to-end response time, total application, to client (and back). On the basis of this they are then in a position to provide service assurance commitments and guarantees to their business customers.

Cellular network providers have the advantage (some say otherwise) of being regulated as they are licensed users of spectrum, but unlicensed spectrum is also becoming essential to the business with greater use of Wi-FI for in-building, cross-campus data networks, wireless homes and even public hotspots. Wi-Fi is also providing alternatives for phone calls though fixed/mobile convergence when combined with cellular or alone in a voice over wireless LAN form of telephony.

Whereas once Wi-Fi could have been considered a ‘best efforts’ form of connectivity, it is now becoming an assumed and critical element of LANs. No longer simply connecting an office worker’s laptop for synchronisation, but now also providing a platform for voice calls, asset tracking and essential front line connectivity for a whole variety of needs.

This too needs to be taken seriously, and that means that when deployed, Wi-Fi availability must be properly measured and assured to a sufficiently high level to meet the needs of the business. This is a step up for many IT departments and, combined with the need to gather assurances about mobile cellular data providers, means that those responsible for managing their organisation's mobile IT networks have to switch their thinking from meeting technical service levels to meeting user experience criteria.

These requirements may at times seem subjective, and some users are prone to complain even when it is not justified, so if there are problems with current suppliers, talking to vendors who are providing more tangible mobile network assurance solutions would seem to be a good idea.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 30th June 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

The moderator of our podcast this time is Tim Minahan, Chief Marketing Officer at Ariba.

Minahan: When discussing heady topics like the cloud, procurement, and finance, and looking at the future of business-to-business (B2B) commerce, we thought it important for you to hear from the experts. So we have assembled a panel of the leading analysts—the folks that you turn to to benchmark your performance, uncover best practices, and make IT buying decisions.

I'd like to welcome our panelists: Mickey North Rizza from AMR Research (a Gartner company), Chris Sawchuk from The Hackett Group, Robert Mahowald from IDC, and Bruce Guptill from Saugatuck Technology.

Here are some excerpts from the discussion:

Guptill: The first thing is to figure out how to handle this cloud thing. It's the single most disruptive influence that we've seen in not just IT, but in how IT is bought, used, paid for, and how that affects how everybody does business. So how is it accounted for? Who has responsibility for managing what aspects?

If you have some of it on-premise and some of it out in the cloud, who is responsible? How is it managed? How is that budgeted for? It changes the way we operate as a business, because it changes the way we spend, the way we buy, and the way we manage. It's very, very disruptive, and policies and practices really haven’t caught up yet to the reality, and we're not getting a breather. The change is accelerating.

Sawchuk: When we ask procurement executives what are they focused on going into 2010 from a technology standpoint, the number one area is just utilizing better the technology investments that they have made—digesting them. So, it's a lot of the basics—cleaning up our master data and just getting more utilization on our eProcurement, eSourcing types of tools in the organization.

But there are a couple of emerging trends that are occurring in the most progressive procurement organizations, in three areas. One is around collaborative technologies. Why is it so difficult to do this in business, when it's so easy with Facebook and all that type of stuff in the non-business type of world? It's not just externally that this applies, but internally as well.

The cloud offers a way to do that a lot more quickly, for less cost, in a way that is still as secure and authenticated as it would be in my IT shop.

Number two, around better management of the knowledge and intelligence across the organization, structured, unstructured, internal, and external types of information.

And lastly, driving more agility into the procurement service delivery model, which includes the technology tools.

Mahowald: For the last 10 years or so, we have seen lines of business start to get more acclimated using software-as-a-service (SaaS) services. Some of those lessons are how those services are delivered and filtered back to IT.

Virtualization, automation, and standardization are finding their ways into our IT departments and they're finding ways to do things like reduce the number of physical assets they spend their time counting, and keep them up and running, and rely more and more on external services that can safely provide the functionality that their users require.

And the typical scenario is that, if I am in the line of business and I want to build an application, or I need to have access to an IT service, I've got to go to my IT team. It can often be long and time-consuming to get that thing spun up and tested, kick all the tires, and get it up and running in the environment that is being used.

The cloud offers a way to do that a lot more quickly, for less cost, in a way that is still as secure and authenticated as it would be in my IT shop, and probably done in a way that is much, much more service enabled, for the ultimate constituency I want to serve, my user, the internal user. So, it's a big opportunity.

North Rizza: Basically, what we're seeing is that companies have a lot of pent up demand over the last couple of years. They haven't been able to change some of their business processes and automate them the way they would like to. What they've been doing is standing back, trying to get more out of their ERP systems or basic business processes. They've had to make a lot of cuts and they're not getting everything they need. What we're finding now is that spending is starting to pick up.

We're also finding that companies are looking for alternative deployment models. They're starting to say, "What can I do above and beyond just the technology application? Where else can I look for services and other opportunities that are, one, going to quickly drive value to my line of business buyer, because those are the folks that do the business day in and day out? They're the ones that need to make a difference. And finally, how do I do it quickly, without a lot of disruption, very flexible, and a great investment, but a really quick return on that investment?"

Sawchuk: When we asked CFOs in the broader enterprise, coming into 2010, what was the number one area of focus for them, it was cash. When we asked the same question to the procurement executives and community, it was cost. Cash was number 10. So the question is, are we misaligned or do we feel that we have done everything we can over the last 18–24 months and there’s nothing more to do?

When you look at this, procurement and the data as just being cost focused are fading. We've got to get much more balanced in the way we actually deliver our value, not just cost, but also working capital and other areas as well.

You wanted some examples of what these world-class organizations do around working capital and how they do it well. Number one, they measure it. They bring visibility to it. They put it on their scorecards. They have cash conversions, cycle time matrix, DPO, DIO, etc.

Number two, they manage it and the source-to-settle, purchase-to-pay process.

Number three, they create collaborative communities with procurement, with the business, finance, and treasury, around working capital strategies and objectives.

And, fourth, they actually compensate. We see organizations out there where some of the procurement folks and these folks on these collaborative communities are compensating. Up to one-third of their compensation is based on their achievement of working capital objectives.

Mahowald: In many IT organizations, as much as 55 percent of the budget is spent on keeping systems running, and that involves paying for the ongoing license and maintenance and support of software and hardware and all the power pipe cost that it takes to run an IT center.

The ability to reduce some of those costs by outsourcing them in lower-cost subscription models that are operating costs is an enormously helpful transition for many customers. CIOs that we talk to are excited about introducing cloud services and also what we call naked compute services or offsite storage to improve the efficiency of certain applications that are widely used in the organization or offsite development platforms, where they can actually build applications.

It’s a major activity for many IT organizations to build new applications, objects, and customizations on-site. If they can offshore that and not have to pay application licenses or infrastructure cost, that’s a big help to them in lowering their fixed-cost structure. Ultimately, it's a big help to make IT organizations much more lean and responsive to their needs.

Guptill: If you can take the software and put it in the cloud, and if you can take the hardware and the infrastructure service, the IT, and put it in the cloud and take advantage of that, we have all these vendors—let's take Ariba for an example—that have these terrific technologies, applications, and the expertise to use them. Why can’t that be delivered and used as a service, as a utility, cloud-based or otherwise?

Then, we have the business logic, we have the software, the applications, the functionality, and the technology, to make it happen. We can do that as an as-needed, on-demand, or subscription basis. It removes a lot of the fixed cost that we've been talking about. It reduces our reliance on fixed assets or fixed cost for what could be cyclical or temporary needs in terms of functionality. It's basically outsourcing business tasks, business functions, or business processes to the cloud. It's "cloud temping" basically.

Over time, these things start from very simple, straightforward, and standardized capabilities, similar to what SaaS, or infrastructure as a service (IaaS) started as, but we are seeing them start to evolve into more configurable or more customizable capabilities.

So that we can now—it's just starting now, but will be much more over the course of the next four or five years—take advantage of a large pool of business functionality that we don’t want to buy. It's not just a technology. It's not just a software. But it's the business tasks that we don’t want to buy, we don’t want to train, and we don’t want on our books. We can rent those as we need them, and when the work is done, they retire back to the cloud.

North Rizza: We found that 96 percent of those in our studies are using cloud-based solutions, but out of that 96 percent, 46 percent are geared into a hybrid cloud solution. And by hybrid we mean that they're actually using cloud technology applications. They're optimizing those against their IT on-premise investments, and further, they're extending the capabilities into cloud services technology. So they're looking at the whole gamut.

When it's executed well and done well, it allows you to execute on your working capital and supplier payment types of strategies.

The second part of that is the next leading area, and that’s 41 percent around a private cloud. The difference there is that they're looking at technology capabilities from the cloud and they're putting that with their ERP or on-premise IT investments, but they're not necessarily extending those capabilities.

... We found that those that actually deployed cloud solutions, technologies, and services and put them out there, found anywhere from 5–7 percent difference in greater value, just by deploying, versus those that are thinking about it or trying to get into the mode of, "We want to go down that path and we are thinking about that investment process."

What were the benefits? It's really interesting. The first is that they were able to drive more revenue. Understandably, if we get those cloud-based solutions, we're going to drive more revenue. If you think about that gap from 5–9 percent, that’s huge, on a revenue standpoint.

Two other points: the cost-to-serve model. They're able to look at what their costs are, what are costing to serve from the enterprise, all the way through their trading partners, all the way back out into where the demand cycle begins, from a supply chain perspective. They get more savings, and those two go hand in hand. Then lastly, it's around that business cycle time improvement aspect.

... So, while we see this as a big area, and companies keep going down this path, one of the things we also find is that it really means a sharper focus on master data management (MDM), your business processes, how that’s orchestrated, both inside the enterprise and externally into your trading partners, and understanding your governance structure. We'll see more and more of that come out, as time goes on here.

Sawchuk: We've been talking about the cloud. How does it help? First of all, and you've heard a lot about this, cloud gives you much faster, easier, and more economical access to technology solutions. Now that you're connected, you can speed the transactions across your supply base, etc.

More importantly, it gives you much more predictability in your ability to execute. For example, a lot of us say we moved our terms. We moved our terms from 45 to 60 days. When we do that, the suppliers say, "When we were on 45, you couldn't pay me on time. You moved it to 60. Can you pay me now on time?" It gives you some predictability in the execution. That's important to them.

Number two is, if you negotiate early pay discounts, you have the ability to execute and take advantage of those kinds of things that you have in your commercial agreement.

The cloud also does a couple of things. It certainly brings much more visibility to the overall activities that are occurring across the entire source-to-settle process. But also, once you are connected in this whole cloud environment, it certainly gives you access to intelligent services that exist out there. I'm talking about working capital, things like information about the financial health of your suppliers, their historical performance, the cost of capital, etc.

That kind of collision between outside the cloud and inside the organization is going to change and it could change business pretty dramatically.

Mahowald: We talked about lower cost, leaner IT organizations, because they are able to source outside of the organization, and get lower cost services. We think that kind of collision between outside the cloud and inside the organization is going to change and it could change business pretty dramatically.

Another thing is that, when you've got solutions that are brought in by business users -- maybe it's a salesforce.com or some other SaaS application -- it's important to them, and it's important for them, to get agility and speed to that functionality, but there are going to be many places where you are going to be brought outside of your organization, because that's where business happens.

Whether it's in a commerce cloud or another forum or marketplace for the exchange of products, you will be forced there essentially to do business, to maintain your presence in the game, see that transparency, and have it help your business. We think that's probably the most likely place for that collision to occur.

Guptill: We've researched, interviewed, and surveyed a little over 7,000 executives worldwide -- finance, procurement, HR, IT, line of business -- over the last six or seven years about what it is that they want to do with cloud IT, whether it's SaaS or IaaS, platform as a service (PaaS) or whatever. In every single case so far, they're using it to add to what they have. It's filling in the gaps. It's enabling better efficiencies, better cost. It's delivering benefits that they could not get earlier cost effectively.

When you think about it, that’s the pattern of IT investment over the last 50- 60 years. It's very, very rare that we replace what we have with whatever new is coming in. There's all this hype about new stuff is coming and it's going to change everything. It's going to get rid of this. We are going to dump that.

Within four to five years, by year end 2015, more than 50 percent of new IT spending will be in the cloud for the first time.

Our latest survey research, which we are just in the process of publishing right now, very strongly indicates that within four to five years, by year end 2015, more than 50 percent of new IT spending will be in the cloud for the first time. That’s within four or five years. But, that means that about 50 percent, or a little less than half, is still going to be on-premise, so that stuff is not going away.

So, over time, what's going to happen is that we have a series of decisions to make. What costs are we trying to control? How are we going to change our purchasing, procurement, management, payment, relationship management, and so on?

Then, as our traditional on-premise systems, not all of them, but as each one comes up, as they reach the end of their useful life, what do we do? Because traditionally, we would add to them, we would just build out around them, until they take over the entire data center, or we would outsource. Now, we have a combination. We can put some in the cloud and some on-premise.

Those are the decisions that we're going to have to face, as we go ahead. What goes out there? What stays in here? What goes in between? The stuff has to be made to work together. Who has that responsibility? What's it going to cost? How is that going to be budgeted? And how are we going to manage all this?

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: 21st June 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

We present a customer case study focussing on Motorola in the area of productivity, cost optimization, and their IT efficiency efforts—a winner of HP's Excellence Award this year.

We're going to hear more about that from Judy Murrah, Senior Director of IT, at Motorola. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Murrah: We sat down with our business partners, top leadership on both sides—our CIO and the business presidents and executive teams—and talked through every business function. That’s the place where we started and where we saw the magic unfold.

We looked at it on a scale of business competitiveness and how important that particular business function is to the business. Then, on the other axis, if you picture the famous 2×2 matrix, we looked at the complexity and cost of that business function.

We did that for every business function we have. We laid it out and then talked through where we would like those functions to move in the future. By mapping it out visually, it helped us to know that some areas were just costing more money than the value they brought to the business. When you see that, you put data on a piece of paper, and you have a visual, it is a very good way to align business and IT around a common goal.

... You don’t really think too much about change and cost optimization being related, but we have had, over time, a very complex IT environment grow. We have thousands of systems in a company that has grown organically and through mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures.

Just to give you an example, if we talk about engineering as a business function; to Motorola, which is a technology company, that’s a critical competitive differentiator, very important, high on the scale of competitiveness. If we look at the complexity and cost of running that today, in Motorola, we have a lot of systems and it’s a high-cost area.

We have somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,800 systems in the company. We manage about 1,000 projects per year that flow out of these decisions. We have about 1,500 employees in the IT organization and are very heavily outsourced in some of the functions. So, we have another few thousand folks who we consider a part of the team, and that’s who have all made this happen.

In order to really be part of the business imperatives to move forward in next-generation business processes, it was too complex to make changes. So, we focused on reducing those systems and doing it in a way that was directly aligned to business change and the directions they would like to go into.

My role at Motorola IT is in what we call CIO Operations. I'm responsible for our project management office (PMO) portfolio, quality, communications, and other activities that support our IT operations. Cost optimization is on everybody’s mind these days, especially with the economy the way it is, and with many business initiatives out there.

The only way we could have managed this is our implementation of one tool and one process, that’s used across the whole Motorola IT environment—HP’s Project and Portfolio Management Center (PPM). It gives us one place where we contain our "source of truth" for our investment dollars, for the priorities of the business request coming through, and for the things that we've decided to work on.

In that tool, we have every one of our people resources named, as well as what they're working on, and we look at their utilization and movement to the most critical areas. We also manage our project execution to the timelines, schedules, and budgets that we commit to our business partners.

What’s very important then is that all of this underlying data and management process that we use can be presented back to the business in very good dashboards and reporting, so that we all stay on top of where we are and can be proactive on change, if it’s needed.

About a year ago we moved from a hosted environment, internal to Motorola, to the HP software-as-a-service (SaaS) environment. It works like a charm. No issues with performance. We have had great responsiveness from HP. It does help reduce our support cost, somewhere around 40 to 50 percent.

Moving from hosted to SaaS didn’t affect usability, adoption, or anything. That really was almost seamless. We were using the same application before and after.

I always talk about how IT is sometimes like the cobbler’s children, as the old saying goes. It’s very difficult to justify the investment in IT tools at some points in time, unless you have ones like this, that are showing payback to the business and you use them in a way that everyone is now depending on it. It does become the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system of the IT organization.

In the last two years we have reduced our cost structure by about 40 percent. That is a big number to do while the business is operating. We have also, on our large projects that we run through the system, shown about a 150 percent payback or return on investment (ROI) for those. That means that the value of the investment for us was placed in the right places.

We've been able to reduce IT support costs by about 25 percent. Previous to this more consolidated system, we were operating in such silos that there were many people doing the same things. So by consolidating, we eliminated about 25 percent of the wasted work.

I think a couple of areas that we need to work at going forward are more on our application support area. That's bringing the tool to manage resources and activities and support operations, tying it a little more tightly into our financial management, and getting a little more granular on the skills and our ability to move our resources around from place to place.

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: 17th June 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

If cloud, in its many forms, gains traction—like any other big change affecting business and IT—adopters require a lot of rationales, incentives, and measurable returns to keep progressing successfully. But, just as the definition of cloud computing itself can elicit myriad responses, the same is true for why an organization should encourage cloud computing.

The major paybacks are not clearly agreed upon, for sure. Are the paybacks purely in economic terms? Is cloud a route to IT efficiency primarily? Are the business agility benefits paramount? Or, does cloud transform business and markets in ways not yet fully understood?

We seek a list of the top reasons why exploiting cloud computing models make sense, and why at least experimenting with cloud should be done sooner rather than later. We have assembled a panel of cloud experts to put some serious wood behind the arrow leading to the cloud.

Please join me now in welcoming Archie Reed, HP's Chief Technologist for Cloud Security and the author of several publications including The Definitive Guide to Identity Management and a new book, The Concise Guide to Cloud Computing; Jim Reavis, executive director of the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and president of Reavis Consulting Group, and Dave Linthicum, Chief Technology Officer of Bick Group and also a prolific cloud blogger and author. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Reed: When we go into all of this discussion around what is the benefit [to cloud], we need to do our standard risk analysis. There’s nothing too much that's new here, but what we do see is that when you get to the cloud and you're doing that assessment, the [payoffs] come down to agility.

Agility, in this sense, has the dimensions of speed and scale. For businesses, that can be quite compelling in terms of economic return and business agility, which is another variation on the theme. But we gain this through the attributes we ascribe to cloud—things like instant on/off, huge scale, per-use billing, all the things we tried to achieve previously but finally seem to be able to get with a cloud-computing architectural model.

If we're going to do the cost-benefit analysis, it does come down to the fact that, through that per-use billing, we're able to do this in a much more fine-grain manner and then compare to the risks that we are going to encounter as a result of using this type of environment. Again, that's regardless of whether it’s public or private. The risks may go down, if it’s a private environment.

Factoring all those things in together, there's not too much of a new model in how we try to achieve this justification and gain those benefits.

Linthicum: This notion of business agility is really where the money is. It's the ability to scale up and scale down, the ability to allocate compute resources around business opportunities, and the ability to align the business to new markets quickly and efficiently, without doing waves and waves of software acquisitions, setups, installs, and all the risks around doing that. That's really where the core benefit is.

If you look at that and you look at the strategic value of agility within your enterprise, it’s always different. In other words, your value of agility is going to vary greatly between a high tech company, a finance company, and a manufacturing company. You can come up with the business benefit and the reason for moving into cloud computing, and people have a tendency not to think that way.

But you have to weigh that benefit in line with the innate risks in moving to these platforms. Whether or not you are moving from on-premises to off-premises, on-premies to cloud, or traditional on-premises to private cloud computing, there’s always risk involved in terms of how you do security, governance, latency, and those things.

Once you factor those things in and you understand what the value drivers are in both OPEX and CAPEX cost and the trade-offs there, as well as business agility, and weigh in the risk, then you have your cost-benefit analysis equation, and it comes down to a business decision. Nine times out of ten, the cloud computing provider is going to provide a more strategic IT value than traditional computing platforms.

Reavis: When you think about the economics, what’s the core of economics? It's supply and demand. Cloud gives you that ability to more efficiently serve your customers. It becomes a customer-service issue, where you can provide a supply of whatever your service is that really fits with their demand.

Ten years ago I started a little minor success in the Internet dot-com days. It was called Securityportal.com. You all remember something called the "Slashdot effect," where a story would get posted on Slashdot and it would basically take your business out. You would have an outage, because so much traffic would go your way.

We would, on the one hand, love those sorts of things, and we would live in fear of when that would happen, when we would get recognition, because we didn’t have cloud-based models for servicing our customers. So, when good things would happen, it would sometimes be a bad thing for us.

I had a chance to spend a lot of time with an online gaming company, and the way they've been able to scale up would only be possible in the cloud. Their business would not have been able to exist in the earlier era of the Internet. It’s just not possible.

So, yeah, it provides us this whole new platform. I've maintained all along that we're not just going to migrate IT into the cloud, but we're going to reinvent new businesses, new business processes, and new ways of having an intermediary relationship with other suppliers and our customers as well. So it’s going to be very, very transformational.

Reed: At HP, when we talk to customers and even try to evaluate internally, we talk about this thing called business outcomes being core to how IT and business align. Whether they're small companies or large companies, it's providing services that support the business outcomes and understanding that ultimately you want to deliver.

In business terms, it's more processing of loan requests and financial transactions. Then, if that’s the measure that people are looking at what the business outcomes need to be, then IT can align with that and they become the service provider for that capability.

We've talked to a lot of customers, particularly in the financial industry, for example, where IT wasn’t measured in how they cut costs or how much staff they had. They were measured in incremental improvements on how many advances could be made in delivering more business capability.

In that example, one particular business metric was, "We can process more loans in a day, when necessary." The way they achieved that was by re-architecting things in a more cloud or service-centric way, wherein they could essentially ramp up, on what they called a private cloud, the ability to process things much more quickly.

Now, many in IT realize—perhaps not enough, but we're seeing the change—that they need to make this toward the service oriented architecture (SOA) approach and delivery, such that they are becoming experts in brokering the right solution to deliver the most significant business outcomes.

That becomes the latency that drives the lateness of the business process changes that need to occur within the enterprise.

The source of those services is less about how much hardware and software you need to buy and integrate and all that sort of thing, and more about the most economical and secure way that they can deliver the majority of desired outcomes. You don’t just want to build one service to provide a capability. You want to build an environment and an architecture that achieves the bulk of the desired outcomes.

Linthicum: Cloud computing will provide us with some additional capabilities. It's not necessarily nirvana, but you can get at compute and you can get at even some of these pretty big services. For example, the Predictive API that Google just announced at Google I/O recently is an amazing piece of data-mining stuff that you can get for free, for now.

The ability to tie that into your existing processes and perhaps make some predictions in terms of inventory control things, means you could save potentially a million dollars a month, supporting just-in-time inventory processes within your enterprise. Those sorts of things really need to come into the mix in order to provide the additional value.

Sometimes we can drive processes out of the cloud, but I think processes are really going to be driven on-premises and they are going to include cloud resources. The ability to on-board those cloud resources is needed to support the changes in the processes and is really going to be the value of cloud computing.

That the area that’s probably the most exciting thing. I just came back from Gluecon in Denver. That is, in a sense, a cloud developers’ conference, and they're all talking about application programming interfaces (APIs) and building the next infrastructure.

When those things come online, become available, and we don’t have to build those things in-house, we can actually leverage them into a "pay per drink" basis through some kind of provider, buying those into our processes. We'll perhaps have thousands of APIs that exist all over the place, and perhaps even not even local data within these APIs.

That’s where the value of cloud computing is going to appear, and we haven’t seen anything yet. There are huge amounts of value being built right now.

They just produce behavior, and we bring them together to form these core business processes. More importantly, we bring them together to recreate these core business processes around new needs of the business.

Reed: I think the incentives, the risks, and all those things with cloud computing change, dependent on the type of business we're looking at.

Certainly, when we talk to smaller organizations and mid-sized organizations as well, they're looking for the edge that they can gain in terms of cost and support and, in most cases, more security. In this case, they look for broader back-office solutions than perhaps some of the larger organizations, things such as email, account management, HR, and so forth, as well as front-end stuff, basic web hosting and more advanced versions of that.

We've implemented things like Microsoft Business Productivity Online Suite (BPOS) for many customers, especially in the mid range. They do find better support, better up time, better cost controls, and to Jim’s point, more security than they are able to provide for themselves.

When we get to talk to larger organizations, some are looking for this. We know, even in the financial industry, which you might consider to be one of the most security paranoid type environments there are outside of the three-letter agencies, they find that kind of thing appealing as well. Some of those have actually gone to use Salesforce.com for some of their services.

But, they're generally more concerned with the security stuff and they often find specific capabilities more appealing in a service model, such as data processing, data analysis, data retrieval, functional analysis, and things like that. The mashups are definitely more popular as a type of model or the service-oriented nature is more popular model with larger organizations that we talk to.

Linthicum: Moving into cloud is going to make people think in a very healthy, paranoid state. In other words, they are going to think twice about what information goes out there, how that information is secured and modeled, what APIs they are leveraging, and service level agreements (SLAs). They're going to consider encryption and identity management systems that they haven’t done in the past.

In most of the instances that I am seeing deploying cloud computing systems, they are as secure, if not more secure, than the existing on-premise systems. I would trust those cloud computing systems more than I would the existing on-premise systems.

That comes with some work, some discipline, some governance, some security, and a lot of things that we just haven’t thought about a lot, or haven’t thought about enough with the traditional on-premise systems. So, that’s going to be a side benefit. In two years, we're going to have better security and better understanding of security because of cloud.

Reed: There will be businesses that are willing and able and can manage cloud-type environments to their benefit. But, eventually, the gaps become so small and the availability of these services online becomes so ubiquitous that I'm not sure how long this window goes for.

I don’t want to say that, in a few years, everybody will be able to deliver the same thing just as quickly. But for the moment, I think there’s a few forward thinking organizations that will be able to achieve that to great success.

Reavis: The organizations that are developing what they think is state-of-the-art—but it’s not cloud—are going to be struggling, because all of the neat, interesting new developments. It’s hard to even put your head around all of implications of compute-as-a-utility and all the innovation we are going to see, but we know it’s going to be on that platform.

If you think of this as the new development platform, then yeah, it’s going to be a real competitive issue. There are going to be a lot of new capabilities that will only be accessible in this platform, and they're going to come a lot quicker.

So, in terms of the first movers and the environment now, it’s going to look very different. Anybody who carved out some space right now and some lead in the market in cloud shouldn't feel too comfortable about their position, because there are companies we don't even know about at this point, that are going to be fairly pervasive and have a lot to say about IT five years from now.

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 June 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

Apptio is betting big on the market for demand-based budget forecasting. A new feature in its technology business management solutions software suite aims to help business managers plan and budget more accurately by inputting departmental forecasts into its software.

The Bellevue, Wash., company is calling it a “closed-loop” approach to financial planning, cost management, and transparency. The promised result: tighter alignment with business priorities, improved cost efficiency, and transparent reporting on the cost and value of IT services.

Michel Feaster, vice president of products at Apptio, is convinced the company’s closed-loop financial planning process will “close the gap between IT and the business” by letting companies update budgets and forecasts based on real business priorities.

“Demand-based forecasting gives IT the data it needs to respond more effectively, and plan accordingly with minimal variance so they aren’t over- or under-committing resources,” Feaster said.

Budgeting and planning = painful and inaccurate
Indeed, Apptio’s latest feature intends to remedy a notoriously painful and inaccurate IT budgeting and planning process. It was General Electric CEO Jack Welch who once said, “The budgeting process at most companies has to be the most ineffective practice in management. It sucks the energy, time, fun, and big dreams out of an organization. It hides opportunity and stunts growth.”

The budgeting process . . . hides opportunity and stunts growth
Apptio’s demand-based forecasting works on the premise that past performance is not an indicator of future trends. Many variables can change and those changes can make a ripple effect across the organization’s IT services needs. In essence, Apptio’s demand-based forecasting is applying best practices from the supply chain management world to IT budgeting and planning.

Companies like Starbucks, Cisco, and Volkswagen are reporting savings with Apptio solutions to determine how changes in key business drivers affect IT services. In fact, Starbucks has seen $1.4 million in savings in nine months while Volkswagen reports a 50 percent reduction in annual budgeting costs through Apptio’s automation. Apptio believes the new demand-based forecasting will drive even stronger returns.

BriefingsDirect contributor Jennifer LeClaire provided editorial assistance and research on this post. She can be reached at http://www.linkedin.com/in/jleclaire and http://www.jenniferleclaire.com.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 25th May 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

Our latest BriefingsDirect interview is with an executive from HP to look at proper planning and execution for massive application-consolidation projects, specifically by examining an HP project itself.

By unpacking this multi-year application consolidation project across global supply chains, we learn about best practices and execution accelerators for such projects, which often involve hundreds of applications and impact thousands of people.

These are by no means trivial projects, and often involve every aspect of IT, as well as require a backing of the business leadership and the users to be done well. The goal through these complex undertakings is to radically improve how applications are developed, managed, and governed across their lifecycle to better support dynamic business environments. The stakes, therefore, are potentially huge for both IT and the business.

The telling case-study, the Global Part Supply Chain project at HP, was initially undertaken in 2006 but typically became bogged down by sheer scale and complexity. After some changes in management approach and governance, however, the project quickly became hugely successful.

We learn how and why from Paul Evans, Worldwide Marketing Lead on Applications Transformation at HP. The interview is conducted by BriefingsDirect's Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Evans: We have always said that the experiences we gain from our own work we would share openly, and sometimes we’re quite happy to say where we did go wrong. In this instance, we’ve written up a case study to give people an insight in more detail than I could possibly provide today. We're going to post that on our portal. If people want to go there, it’s relatively simple: HP's Application Consolidation case study.

There are so many lessons learned here, addressing what people have in terms of portfolio and then also delivering new, contemporary, revised types of applications and/or infrastructure. They’ll find videos and other materials of other customers who have embarked on these journeys, whether they’ve been driving that from the top down, from an application’s nature, or whether it’s people who are coming in from the infrastructure.

As you can imagine, HP is an extremely large organization. It makes products, as well as sells services, etc. In terms of product, just imagine your average PC, or your average server, and think of the number of components that are made up inside of that device. It runs into hundreds of thousands, whether it's memory chips, disk drives, screens, keyboards, or whatever.

For a company like HP, in the event that someone needs a spare part for whatever reason, they don't expect to wait a significant period of time for it to turn up. They want it delivered 24 hours later by whatever means that suits them.

So, it's essential for us to have that global supply chain of spare parts tailored toward the ones that we believe we need more—rather than less—and that we can supply those parts quickly and easily and, at the same time, cost effectively. That's important for any organization that is dealing in physical components or in the provision of a service. You want to maintain customer satisfaction or increased customer satisfaction.

Customer centric
For us, it was essential that a massive global supply chain organization was extremely customer-centric, but at the same time, very cost-effective. We were doing our utmost to reduce costs, increase the agility of the applications to service the customers, and fuel growth, as our organization and our business grows. The organization has got to respond to that.

So the primary reasoning here was that this is a large organization, dealing with multiple components with pressures on it both from the business and the IT sides.

One of the primary reasons we had to do this is that HP has been an amalgam of companies like Hewlett-Packard, originally, Compaq, Tandem, DEC. All of these organizations had their own bills of materials, their own skills, and basically this thing has just grown like Topsy.

What we were trying to do here was to say that we just couldn't continue to treat these systems as un-integrated. We had a lot of legacy environments that were expensive to run, a lot of redundancy, and a lot of overlap.

The goal here clearly was to produce one integrated solution that treated the HP customer as an individual, and in the back-end consolidated the applications—the ones we really needed to move forward. And also, a goal was to retire those applications that were no longer necessary to support the business processes.

The whole notion of this coming about through mergers and acquisitions is very common in the marketplace. It's not unique just to HP. The question of whether you just live with everybody’s apps or you begin to consolidate and rationalize is a major question that customers are asking themselves.

From the IT side, there was clearly a view from the top down that said living with 300 applications in the supply-chain world was unacceptable. But also from the business side, the real push was that we had to improve certain metrics. We have this metric called Spend-to-Revenue ratio which is, in fact, what are we spending for parts as opposed to what we are getting in terms of revenue? We were clearly below par in those spaces.

We had some business imperatives that were driving this project that said we needed to save money, we needed to be able to deliver faster, and we needed to be able to do it more reliably. If we tell a customer they're going to get the part within 24 hours, we deliver in 24 hours—not 36 or 48, because we weren't quite sure where it was. We had to maintain the business acumen.

The rationalization that has taken place inside HP around its IT organization and technology is that because we are human beings, most people think in a very siloed way.

They see their suite of applications supporting their business. They like them. They love them. They’ve grown up with them, and they want to continue using them. Their view is, "Mine is perfect to suit my business requirement. Why would I need anything else?"

That's okay, when you're very close to the coalface. You can always make decisions and always deem to the fact that the applications you use are strategic—an interesting word that a lot of people use. But, as you zoom out from that environment and begin to get a more holistic view of the silos, you can begin to see that the duplication and replication is grossly inefficient and grossly expensive.

So, our whole goal here was to align business and IT in terms of a technological response to a business driver.

When we submitted the project, we were basically driving it by committee. Individual business units were saying, "I need applications x, y, z." Another group says, "Actually, we need a, b, c." There was virtually no ability to get to any consensus. The goal here is to go from 300 apps to 30 apps. We’re never going to do it, if you could all self-justify the applications you need.

What we did was discard the committee approach. We took the approach, basically led by one person from the business side, who had supply chain experience, and one from the IT side who had supply chain experience, but both had their specialist areas. These two people were the drivers. The buck stopped with these people. They had to make the big decisions.

To support them, they had a sponsorship committee of senior executives, to which they could always escalate, if there was a problem making a final decision about what was necessary.

Randy Mott, the HP CIO, has the direct support of Mark Hurd, the HP chairman and CEO. In my experience, that's absolutely essential in any project a customer undertakes. They have to have executive sponsorship from the top.

If you don't, any time you get to an impasse, there's no way out. It just distills into argument and bickering. You need somebody who's going to make the decision and says, "We're going this way and we're not going that way."

Getting on track
So for us, setting up this whole governance team of two people to make the hard decisions, and their being supported by a project management team who are there to go off and enact the decisions that were made was the way we really began to move this project forward, get it on track, get it on time, and get it in on budget.

When we started by saying let's have a big committee to help my decisions, it was the wrong approach. We were going nowhere. We had to rationalize and say "no."

Two respected individuals, one from the IT side and one from the business side, who were totally aligned on what they were doing, shared the same vision in what they were trying to achieve. By virtue of that, we could enforce throughout decisions, which were sometimes unpopular.

We had to focus on driving this both from business and IT. As I said in this example, we went from 300 apps to 30 apps. We had a 39 percent reduction in our inventory dollars. We reduced our supply chain expenses. We reduced the cost of doing next day delivery. We're heading toward reducing our CO2 emissions by 40 percent on those next-day deliveries.

But overall, the global supply chain, this measure of spent revenue, we drove down by 19 percent. We're running a better, faster, cheaper organization that is more agile. As you said, it positions us better to exploit situations as they change and feel that they’ve become more of an opportunity rather than a threat.

We'd like to think that those organizations that are out there with a supply chain challenge could now look at this and say, "Maybe we could do the same thing." Definitely the alignment between business and IT is probably one of the most paramount of facets. Let me do with which platform, which network, which disk drive, or which operating system. You can have a lot of fun with that. But, in this instance, a lot of the success was driven by setting up the right governance and decision-making structure with the right sponsorship.

Over the last 12 months what people have realized that it is now time for those organizations that want to remain competitive and innovative. Unfortunately, I still see a lot of companies that believe that doing nothing is the thing to do and will just wait for the economy to rebound. I don't believe it's going to rebound to the same place. It may come back and it may be stronger, but it may end up on a different place.

The organizations that are not waiting, but are trying to be innovative, competitive, move away from the competition, and give themselves some breathing space are the ones who are going to sustain themselves.

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: 14th May 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

Increasingly, sellers of IT are finding it harder to win large software and hardware capital purchases contracts, which traditionally followed three- to seven-year obsolescence and refresh cycles. The shifts in technology and business models accelerated by the recession are forcing these vendors in particular to adopt more of a professional services revenue model.

Buyers of technology, on the other hand, are moving to IT shared services and software-as-a-service (SaaS) models to get off of the capital outlays roller coaster. They want smoother and more predictable operating and charging models, beginning with long-term professional services and outsourcing engagements.

Both the buyer and seller of services therefore need to focus on the implementation and integration of solutions, placing a complex burden on the services delivery personnel themselves, as well as those who managing the services providers.

We’re here to find out some new, best ways of managing and automating these intellectual resources that support the professional services lifecycle. We’ll see how recent research shows that more of a just-in-time (JIT) methodology is required to keep the skills in balance with myriad project requirements and obligations.

To learn more about resource utilization and management in the global services economy, we're joined by Lori Ellsworth, Vice President of Changepoint Solutions at Compuware, the sponsor of this podcast, and by Mark Sloan, Chief Operating Officer of RTM Consulting. The discussion is moderated by BriefingsDirect's Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Ellsworth: The change and the focus on professional services is moving from something that was nice to have, to something that is necessary to have to be successful.

Software companies are a great example. Historically, companies in that sector may have done mostly product business and less service. Services are now necessary to deliver success, and the services business is a very healthy part of the software business and is contributing significantly to the bottom-line.

Now, organizations have to understand how to get a handle on the people they have working for them, how best utilize them, and how to make sure that your employees, those assets, are challenged and happy, but that you are delivering that service to provide value to your customers.

There needs to be more discipline, more information, and a better process for decision-making and forward planning, so that the organization can scale and scale in a financially successful way.

So, the stakes are higher, in terms of the discipline and the approach that we need to take to manage that professional services part of the business.

Sloan: At RTM Consulting, one of our core areas of focus is in this area of resource management. How can you get the right person in the right place at the right time and drive up utilization, but at the same time, make sure that you're delivering value to your end customers and leaving them satisfied and coming back for more?

When a software company shows up with its professional services arm, the client is expecting that each and every one of the people who show up is an expert in the software, the technology, and the implementation process. The days of people learning on the job and coming up to speed are long gone.

The challenge today is for companies to get visibility into the type of work that’s coming down the pike, so that they can proactively train their internal resources and be prepared for that work, so that when they do show up, they are the experts.

We’ve actually taken the principles of JIT manufacturing and directed them to the professional services organization [via in new service definitions of JIT.]

Just as 30 years ago, any manufacturing company had big inventories of supplies, finished products, sitting in their warehouse. Ten or 15 years ago, the big services organizations were able to have excess resources on the bench, in the office, waiting for that next project to arrive.

What we’ve done is taken those same principles -- forecasting what the future scenarios look like, what the demands look like, and then translating that back into how many resources you are going to need, the types of resources, the skills those resources need to have.

You can, at that right moment, bring on a new employee, go to a third-party contractor to fulfill that demand, or give yourself enough advanced notice to cross-train your existing resources on new technologies, new products, so that they can work across your portfolio and not just focus on one particular area.

Getting to the solution

Ellsworth: There are four critical success factors, but also the building-block approach. In other words, you need to start with the fundamental. You need to understand your people and their skills and get that view of your business. Then, you can start to add levels of maturity, look at forecasting, look at different models for resource allocation, and bring in project management.

As organizations start to put the buildings blocks in place, and adopt the disciplines and build the processes that work in their business, [they can have trouble] scaling that.

You can make that work within a small team or across a couple of small teams, but ... you need visibility ... to scale that to your entire services organization, including management. [But] you can't scale and reinforce that discipline without automation.

The two really have to go together. One won’t be successful without the other in a large professional services organization. Automation brings the scale factor.

The ability to measure and monitoring is something that Mark also highlights as critical success factors. Again, you’ve got a large group of people with a lot of activity going on. There's lots of data, but you have to roll that up to the management level to make it valuable to help drive decisions in the business.

... Our focus has been on driving that view as a professional services organization, but importantly driving that view inside the context of the broader company.

It starts with those building blocks around who are your resources, what are their capabilities, and where are they being utilized. It brings you to the next level of maturity in terms of being able to look at forecasts and do some demand and capacity planning.

And then it goes even further from a resource perspective to that professional development side. Let's look at the gaps in the next six to nine months. Where can we identify resources and put them on a development plan to fill those gaps?

We're managing the day-to-day business of a professional services organization and going beyond that to deal with project management, engagement management, and right through to billing for a professional services organization and for technology companies that also have a strong product side of a business.

The paybacks can be, and are, significant. First and foremost, is really speed to revenue and cash flow.

The Changepoint solution has been active and working with customers in their professional services organization for many years, going back to the late 1990’s. We also deliver a project portfolio management capability to allow them to manage products and manage delivery of those product applications.

Sloan: The paybacks can be, and are, significant. First and foremost, is really speed to revenue and cash flow. Lori mentioned that doing this in a large services organization is critical and an enabling technology is required to make that happen.

I’d argue the same for small professional services organizations. Having the information that tools like Changepoint can put at your fingertips, you can quickly identify people in your organization that have the right skills, that off the top of your head you might not think of, and staff projects quickly with the appropriate resources, ultimately enabling you to get that revenue.

Billable utilization

Secondly, you start to see a significant lift in overall billable utilization. This is for the professional services organization. Again, by getting better visibility into the skills that different resources have, you realize you have many more people in the organization that can do work than you think of.

For more information on resource utilization, read RTM's whitepaper "The ROI of Resource Utilization -- Measuring and Capturing the Real Business Value of Your People."

Learn more about Compuware Changepoint.

Other research points to the fact that companies who do this development of staff and get projects started on time are significantly more likely to finish their projects on budget and on time and drive significantly positive customer satisfaction.

Companies that aren’t able to do this -- take an extra five, 10, or 15 days to fill some of the slots on a project -- tend to go over-budget, don’t get it done on time, and, as a result, have poor customer satisfaction. If you think about it, it's back to that mantra, "Do it right the first time." This process helps you do that.

Ellsworth: As you're adding discipline and increasing maturity, there is participation from the practitioner, if you can position the value to them in terms of increased opportunity or an ability for them to better manage their schedule and not be burnt out. They have access to different opportunities. It's very valuable and can help them actively participate in moving the business forward and not kind of fight against it.

A broader pool of resources comes there to help you respond to customers which just increases the need to understand who those resources are and what they can bring to the table to support these services.

Customers of mine, in Europe for example, are quoting that on a year-over-year basis, they are able to reduce non-productive time -- and therefore the cost of that non-productive time -- by 16 percent.

Other customers will articulate the value of this entire solution in terms of revenue increase, the focus of getting control over their resources, who they have and how they can most effectively deploy them. Another customer of mine in Europe talks about a 30 percent increase in revenue, linked directly to implementing some of these practices in getting that control over their resources.

Sloan: The same lessons apply to shared services organizations, such as internal, large IT departments managing multiple projects per year to deploy technology.

They can leverage the technology that Changepoint offers to keep track of the people, where they are deployed, what skills they have, what new projects are coming in, and achieve a similar increase in productive utilization of those resources. But to your point, in terms of creative organizations, this would apply to any organization that is focused on moving people with particular skill sets to a unique project.

When we architect a solution for clients, it’s a unique solution taking into account the various constraints and the environment of that client.

That includes engineering services organizations, creative agencies that are moving talent from one project to the next -- anyone who relies on definite skills and knowledge that aren’t just easily interchangeable. This helps forecast where you can get the biggest bang for the buck with those people.

In terms of getting started, when we typically work with clients, we come in and do a quick assess and architect phase where we’ll take a look at how resource management is being done today, compare that to the best practices that we’ve defined for JIT Resourcing, and identify areas where you are strong and areas where there is an opportunity for change and improvement. When we architect a solution for clients, it’s a unique solution taking into account the various constraints and the environment of that client.

JIT Resourcing is a defined approach. We have recognized that there are unique aspects to every business, and can tailor the solution to fit there.

By deploying these processes now, you can start to learn the continuous improvement that’s needed, but be enabled as more and more of your clients go to SaaS, but you’ve got to have to deploy people with the moment’s notice.

You're going to get much better at predicting and forecasting what your future needs are, enabling you to align your resources and capabilities accordingly. You want to achieve the benefits we talked about -- speed to revenue, speed to cash-flow, and zero idle resources.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Read a full transcript or download a copy. Sponsor: Compuware.

For more information on resource utilization, read RTM's whitepaper "The ROI of Resource Utilization -- Measuring and Capturing the Real Business Value of Your People."

Learn more about Compuware Changepoint.

You may also be interested in:

• Portfolio Management Techniques Help Rationalize IT Budgets in Tough Economy
  
  
• Transcript of BriefingsDirect Podcast on Developer Productivity
  
  
• Security Skills Offer Top Draw Across Still Challenging U.S. IT Jobs Outlook

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 13th May 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

Gut-wrenching recessions have a way of changing things ... for people, families, and companies. They can also, perhaps like no other event, provoke change in large IT vendors like HP, IBM, TIBCO and Oracle.

Based on this week's HP announcements and last week's IBM Impact conference, these two of the very largest, full-service, global IT vendors are betting -- now that the recession has, at the least, bottomed out -- that the extent of change now upon us is more than just another business cycle come full circle.

Far more, these vendors see that the recession has provided a catalyst for a much larger shift in how IT is done and delivered. It's no coincidence that the interest in cloud computing and innovative IT sourcing options, for example, peaked when the recession was at its deepest.

The idea garnering wide attention in the darkest days was not just to save money by downsizing, but to also to start doing things very differently -- to truly innovate, to change the very economics of IT. But now that the worst is over, simply saving money via old IT methods, I'll wager, will prove a lot more expensive in real terms than rapidly investing in new ways of providing IT value as services.

That doesn't mean that some enterprise IT organizations won't try to go right back to business as usual. And some of the IT vendors, with their license auditors in tow, are counting on it.

It does mean that the enterprises that can actually change how they do and pay for IT in the post-recession economy may have an escalating advantage over those that do not.

Not the same old song and dance

HP this week announced the equivalent of a Swiss Army knife for IT transformation, with about as many blades and instruments as there are ways to attack the data center transformation gordian knot. The HP services, software, and sourcing offerings are designed to guide enterprises -- from the starting points of their choosing -- through a seismic transition from cost containment to IT innovation. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Last week, IBM boldly scooped up Cast Iron Systems, a cloud-to-IT integration engine maker, and further polished its view that the way to a smarter planet is via better business processes and a deep understanding of vertical industries, automation and how IT (with professional services) can bring them together. My colleague Tony Baer at Ovum delves into IBM's recasting of the definition of business applications and acceptance of the partly cloudy future.

TIBCO this week at its annual user conference delivered a dozen major announcements and stepped even more boldly into cloud models, too. TIBCO's "Enterprise 3.0" vision emphasizes the importance of real-time and massive scale processing, an integrated development-to-deployment to business process management capability, and now the option of building out an enterprise private cloud to public cloud synergy using partners like Amazon Web Services. TIBCO is also embedding BI capabilities deeply across the portfolio. [Disclosure: TIBCO is a past-sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Oracle, for its part, made good on its "software, hardware, complete" vision via a cameo (and somewhat buffoon-like) appearance by Chairman and CEO Larry Ellison in the debut of the movie Iron Man 2 last week. Perhaps we should expect a fist-sized "arc reactor" for database appliances in the near future? Yet Oracle is also recently drinking deeply from the cloud well, given some its recent speeches by executives as it digests the Sun Microsystems acquisition.

The point is that these vendors know something big is up in IT, beyond business as usual. We're seeing bold moves by them all, from acquisitions to restructuring to Hollywood-delivered group-think and not-so-subliminal brand imagery.

HP tackles the IT funding conundrum

HP is looking to actually help enterprises fund these transformative times. HP's economic rationale for moving to innovation now goes beyond the need for swift and verifiable ROI in IT investments. Additionally, HP is banking on the high and painful costs of not being able to move well in dynamic markets, of incurring costs from inertia, rather than from investing for advancement.

Most urgently, IT cannot miss out in supporting businesses as they face rapid growth and savvy competitors across global markets, says HP.

More succinctly, HP's message from this week's announcements comes as a warning that going back to the old IT ways, of sliding back to the economics of expensive waste as a proxy for brittle peak reliability, risks missing the lessons of the recession.

HP is therefore taking a three-pronged approach to making adoption of innovations the new mantra of IT. The first approach finds way to deliver self-funding projects. The second leverages modern architecture and methodologies so IT organizations can quickly and easily add new functionality, making change the constant. The third approach shows how to freeing up funds trapped in on-going IT operations based on older IT economics.

As enterprises are faced with transformation from old to more modern IT, many are caught in an inertia of avoidance -- frozen by the complexity and scale of the task, according to new research supported by HP. What's needed is incremental change that pays for itself along the way, but which remains aligned with the strategic transformation and direction.

The HP focus on self-funding projects, therefore, includes offering qualified clients a complimentary, hands-on HP Applications Modernization Transformation Experience session that illustrates IT modernization and its benefits. The goal: By retiring legacy applications and eliminating complexity in technology environments, organizations are able to self-fund their modernization journeys.

Cost of lost opportunity

“The phrase ‘time is money’ rings true here, as 99 percent of organizations say that innovation gridlock cost them in lost time,” said Thomas E. Hogan, executive vice president of sales, marketing and strategy for HP Enterprise Business, in a release. “By breaking the innovation gridlock, organizations can regain time to market and capitalize on new opportunities.” More at www.hp.com/go/breakthegridlock2010.

According to research conducted on behalf of HP by Coleman Parkes Research:

• Some 95 percent of business and technology executives said innovation gridlock resulted in lost opportunities for their organizations.

• And 91 percent felt that innovation gridlock cost their organizations in lost effort (from resources). More data is available at www.hp.com/go/HPEnterpriseResearch2010.

Together the promise of cloud, the constraints of the recession, and the quick-paced requirements of modern business agility have conspired to expose the weaknesses of plain old IT ... stack upon stack, brittle apps astride brittle apps, and rack by rack of under-utilized workloads alienated from their fit-for-purpose potential.

HP says the cost of doing nothing to transform IT is too great to ignore. IBM is transforming the very definition of business services and applications with plant-wide efficiencies in mind. TIBCO is refining software delivery that steps up to the cloud challenge. Oracle is enclosing its software in an optimized "iron" support infrastructure to improve performance to cost ratios dramatically.

All these vendors will still sell you the good old IT systems the good old ways. But they are also coming up with some big new tricks. Who will take them up on their hedge against a truly transformative IT future?

You may also be interested in:

• The Open Group's Cloud Work Group advocates understanding of cloud-use benefits for enterprises
  
  
• Mutual embrace of SOA and cloud computing builds into productivity waltz across the IT landscape
  
  
• ArchiMate gives business leaders and architects a common language to describe how the enterprise works

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 11th May 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

This BriefingsDirect podcast features software-as-a-service (SaaS) upstart Workday, provider of enterprise solutions for human resources management, financial management, payroll, spend management, and benefits management.

Can software-as-a-service (SaaS) applications actually accelerate the use and power of business analytics?
We're going to help answer that by examining a human capital management (HCM) and enterprise resource planning (ERP) SaaS provider, Workday, and show how easily customizable views on data and analytics can have a big impact on how managers and knowledge workers operate.

Historically, the back office business applications that support companies have been distinct from the category of business intelligence (BI). Certainly, applications have had certain ways of extracting analytics, but the interfaces were often complex, unique, and infrequently used.

By using SaaS applications and rich Internet technologies that create different interface capabilities -- as well as a wellspring of integration and governance on the back-end of these business applications (built on a common architecture) -- more actionable data gets to those who can use it best. They get to use it on their terms, as our case today will show, for HCM or human resources managers in large enterprises.

The trick to making this work is to balance the needs that govern and control the data and analytics, but also opening up the insights to more users in a flexible, intuitive way. The ability to identify, gather, and manipulate data for business analysis on the terms of the end-user has huge benefits. As we enter what I like to call the data-driven decade, I think nearly all business decisions are going to need more data from now on.

To learn more about how the application and interfaces are the analytics, with apologies to Marshall McLuhan, please join me in welcoming Stan Swete, Vice President of Product Strategy and the CTO at Workday; Jim Kobielus, Senior Analyst for BI and Analytics at Forrester Research, and Seth Grimes, Principal Consultant at Alta Plana Corp., and a contributing editor at TechWeb's Intelligent Enterprise. The discussion is moderated by me, BriefingsDirect's Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions.
Here are some excerpts:

Swete: When I think of how BI is done, primarily in enterprises, I think of Excel spreadsheets, and there are some good reasons for that, but there’s also some disadvantages that that brings.

When I look at the emergence of separate BI tools, one driver was the fact that data comes from all kinds of disparate data sources, and it needs aggregation and special tooling to help overcome that problem.

Also, traditional enterprise applications have been written for what I would call the back-office user. While they do a very good job of securing access to data, they don’t do a very good job of painting a relevant picture for the operational side of the business.

A big driver for BI was taking the information that’s in the enterprise systems and putting a view on some dimensionality that managers or the operational side of the business could relate to. I don’t think apps have done that very well, and that’s where a lot of BI originated as well.

From a Workday perspective, we think that you're going to always need to have separate tools to be data aggregators, to get some intelligence out of data from disparate sources. But, when the data can be focused on the data in a single application, we think there is an opportunity for the people who build that application to build in more BI, so that separate tooling is not needed. That’s what we think we are doing at Workday.

Kobielus: Being able to pull data from wherever into your Excel spreadsheet and model it and visualize it is how most people have done decision, support, and modeling for a long time in the business world.

... I like what you said, that the interface is the analytics. That’s exactly true. Fundamentally, BI is all about delivering action and more intelligence to decision agents. The analytics are the payload, and they are accessed by the decision agents through an interface or interfaces. Really, the interfaces have to fit and really plug into every decision point.

... In the cloud, it has to be like a cloud data warehouse ecosystem, but it also has to be a interface. The interfaces between this cloud enterprise data warehouse (EDW) and all the back-end transactional systems have to be through cloud and service oriented architecture (SOA) approaches as well.

What we are really talking about is a data virtualization layer for cloud analytics to enable the delivery of analytics pervasively throughout the organization.

Grimes: We're definitely in a data-driven decade, but there’s just so much data out there that maybe we should extend that metaphor of driving a bit.

The real destination here is business value, and what provides the roadmap to get from data to business value is the competencies, experiences, and the knowledge of business managers and users.
It’s the systems, the data warehouses, that Jim was talking about, but also hosted, as-a-service types of systems, which really focus on delivering the BI capabilities that people need. Those are the great vehicle for getting to that business value destination, using all of that data to drive you along in that direction.

Swete: The thing that frequently gets left out is a focus on the transactional apps themselves and the things they can do to support pervasive analytics.

For disparate data sources, you're going to need data warehouses. Any time you've got aggregation and separate reporting tools, you're going to need to build interfaces.

But, if you think back to how you introduced this topic Dana, how you introduced SaaS, is when you look at IT’s involvement, if interfaces need to get built to convey data, IT has to get involved to make sure that some level of security is maintained.

From Workday’s point of view, what you want to do is reduce the times when you have to move data just to do analysis. We think that there is a role that you can play in applications where -- and this gets IT out of it -- if your application, that is the originator of transactional data, can also support a level of BI and business insight, IT does not have to become as involved, because they bought the app with the trust in the security model that’s inherent to the application.

What we're trying to is leverage the fact that we can be trusted to secure access to data. Then, what we try to do is widen the access within the application itself, so that we don’t have to have separate data sources and interfaces.

This doesn’t cover all cases. You still need data aggregation. But, where the majority of the data is sourced in a transaction system, in our case HR, we think that we, the apps vendor, can be relied on to do more BI.

What we've been working on is constantly enhancing managers' abilities to get access to their data. Up through 2009, that took the form of trying to enhance our report writer and deliver more options for reports, either the option to render reports in a small footprint, we call it Worklet, and view it side by side, whether they are snippets of data, or the option to create more advanced reports.

This is an ability to enhance our built-in report writer to allow managers or back-office personnel to directly create what become little analysis cues.

We had introduced a nice option last year to create what we call contextual reporting, the ability to sort of start with your data -- looking at a worker -- and then create a report about workers from there, with guidance as to all the Workday fields, where they applied to the worker. That made it easier for a manager not to have to search or even remember parts of our data dictionary. They could just look at the data they knew.

This year, we're taking, we think, a major step forward in introducing what we are calling custom analytics. This is an ability to enhance our built-in report writer to allow managers or back-office personnel to directly create what become little analysis cues. We call them matrix reports.

That’s a new report type in our report writer. Basically, you very quickly -- and importantly without coding or migrating data to a separate tool, but by pointing and clicking in our report writer -- get one of these matrix reports that allows slicing and dicing of the data and drilling down into the data in multiple dimensions. In fact, the tool automatically starts with every dimension of the data that we know about based on the source you gave us.

We're trying to make it simple to get this analysis into the hands of managers to analyze their data.
Self-service information

Kobielus: What you are saying there is very important. What you just mentioned there, Stan, is one thing I left off in my previous discussion, which is self-service information and exploration through hierarchical and dimensional drill down and also mashup in collaborative sharing of your mashups.

It's where the entire BI space is going, both traditional, big specialized BI vendors, but also vendors like yourself, who are embedding this technology into back office apps, and have adopted a similar architecture. The users want all the power and they're being given the power to do all of that.

... My colleague, Boris Evelson, surveyed IT decision makers -- we have, in fact, in the last few years -- on the priorities for BI and analytics. What they're adopting, what projects they are green lighting, more and more of them involve self-service, pervasive BI, specifically where you have more self-service, development, mashup style environments, where there is more SaaS for quick provisioning.

What we're seeing now is that there is the beginnings of a tipping point here, where IT is more than happy to, as you have all indicated, outsource much of the BI that they have been managing themselves, because, in many ways, the running of a BI system is not a core competency for most companies, especially small and mid-market companies.

Grimes: Add in the web. The web is going to be a great mechanism for interconnecting all of the distributed systems that you might have and bringing in additional data that might be germane to your business problems, that isn’t held inside your firewall, and all that kind of stuff. The web is definitely a fact nowadays and it’s so reliable finally that you can run operational systems on top of it.

That’s where some of the stuff that Stan was talking about comes into play. Data movement between systems does create vulnerability. So, it's really great, when you can bundle or package multiple functional components on a single platform.

Swete: When we think about reporting at Workday, we have three things in mind. We're trying to make the development of access to data simple. So that’s why we try to make it always -- never involve coding. We don’t want it to be an IT project. Maybe it's going to be a more sophisticated use of the creation of reports. So, we want it to be simple to share the reports out.

The second word that’s top of my list is relevance. We want the customers to guide themselves to the relevant data that they want to analyze. We try to put that data at hand easily, so they can get access to it. Once they're analyzing the data, since we are a transaction system, we think we can do a better job of being able to take action off of what the insight was.

I call it transanalytics. It's a combination of transaction systems and analytics systems. And really it's a closed loop. It must be.

So, we always have what we call related actions as a part of all the reports that you can create, so you can get to either another report or to a task you might want to do based on something a report is showing you.

Then, the final thing, because BI is complex, we also want to be open. Open means that it still has to be easy to get data out of Workday and into the hands of other systems that can do data aggregation.

Kobielus: That’s interesting -- the related action and the capability. I see a lot of movement in that area by a lot of BI vendors to embed action links into analytics. I think the term has been coined before. I call it transanalytics. It's a combination of transaction systems and analytics systems. And really it's a closed loop. It must be.

It's actionable intelligence. So, duh, then shouldn't you put an action link in the intelligence to make it really truly actionable? It's inevitable that that’s going to be part of the core uptake for all such solutions everywhere.

... The analytics themselves though -- the analysis and the intelligence -- are a core competency they want to give the users: information workers, business analysts, subject matter experts. That's the real game, and they don't want to outsource those people or their intelligence and their insights. They want to give them the tools they need to get their jobs done.

What's happening is that more and more companies, more and more work cultures, are analytic savvy. So, there is a virtuous cycle, where you give users more self-service -- user friendly, and dare I say, fun -- BI capabilities or tools that they can use themselves. They get ever more analytics savvy. They get hungry for more analysis. They want more data. They want more ways to visualize and so forth. That virtuous cycle plays into everything that we are seeing in the BI space right now.

Cost analysis

Swete: Or vision is that, as we can widen our footprint from an application standpoint, the payoff for what our end-users can do in terms of analysis just increases dramatically. Right now, it's attaching cost to your HR operations' data. In the future, we see augmenting HR to include more and more talent data. We're at work on that today, and we are very excited about dragging in business results and drawing that into the picture of overall performance.

And Workday has already built up more than just HCM. We offer financial management applications and have spend-management applications.

So a big part of how we're trying to develop our apps is to have very tight integration. In fact, we prefer not even to talk about integration, but we want these particular applications to be pieces of a whole. From a BI perspective, we wanted to be that. We believe that, as a customer widens their footprint with us, the value of what they can get out of their analysis is only going to increase.

You look at your workforce. You look at what they have achieved through their project work. You look at how they have graded out on that from the classical HR performance point of view. But, then you can take a hard look at what business results have generated. We think that that's a very interesting and holistic picture that our customers should be able to twist and turn with the tools we have been talking about today.

Grimes: There is a kind of truism in the analytics world that one plus one equals three. When you apply multiple methods, when you join multiple datasets, you often get out much more than the sum of what you can get with any pair of single methods or any pair of single datasets.

Some users are really going to get down and dirty with the data and with the analytical methods, and you want to support them, but you also want to deliver appropriate sophistication of analytics to other users.

If you can enable that kind of cross-business functions, cross-analytical functions, cross-datasets, then your end-users are going to end up farther along in terms of optimizing the overall business picture and overall business performance, as well as the individual functional areas, than they were before. That's just a truism, and I have seen it play out in a variety of organizations and a variety of businesses.

Swete: The thing that always occurs to me as an advantage of SaaS is that SaaS is a change delivery vehicle. If you look at the trend that we have been talking about, this sort of marrying up transactional systems with BI systems, it’s happening from both ends. The BI vendors are trying to get closer to the transactional systems and then transactional systems are trying to offer more built-in intelligence. That trend has several steps, many, many more steps forward.

The one thing that’s different about SaaS is that, if you have got a community of customers and you have got this vision for delivering built-in BI, you are on a journey. We are not at an endpoint. And, you can be on that journey with SaaS and make the entire trip.

In an on-premise model, you might make that journey, but each stop along the way is going to be three years and not multiple steps during the year. And, you might never get all the way to the end if you are a customer today.

SaaS offers the opportunity to allow vendors to learn from their customers, continue to feed innovation into their customers, and continue to add value, whereas the on-premise model does not offer that.

See a demo on how Workday BI offers business users a new experience for accessing the key information to make smart decisions.

About Workday

This BriefingsDirect podcast features software-as-a-service (SaaS) upstart Workday, provider of enterprise solutions for human resources management, financial management, payroll, spend management, and benefits management.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Read a full transcript or download a copy. Sponsor: Workday.

You may also be interested in:

• HCM SaaS Provider Workday's Advanced Architecture Brings New Business Agility Benefits to Enterprises
  
  
• Executive Interview: Workday's Aneel Bhusri on Advancement of SaaS and Cloud Models for Improved ERP
  
  
• Workday Builds out SaaS Bellwether for Human Capital Management Services and Costs Control

By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 28th April 2010 Copyright Quocirca © 2010

If there has been any early benefit for business users from the UK Government's launch of the Digital Britain paper in 2009, it has been the apparently stimulating effect it has had on the enthusiasm of carriers for providing services over fibre. For some of the larger players, BT in particular, this has been more like a Frankenstein lightning bolt than a gentle prod. Where once established networking companies talked of ‘providing high speed broadband if there is sufficient demand', there are now more blanket coverage statements.

This is odd as there really wasn't anything in the bill that directly and significantly targeted business use, but the reaction in the media and among smaller players across the industry seems to have woken the apparently slumbering giants. Delivering universal broadband now seems to have some urgency.

It is not only coverage where commitments are being made, but also in service levels. More bandwidth is being offered, with larger usage allowances and guaranteed speed or capacity. This is vital as companies are reliant on their digital connectivity—to drive commerce and communications, i.e. it is not just broadband as a nice to have internet access mechanism. This also changes the requirements for another aspect of broadband performance—upload speed. The more a data connection is used for general communications—telephony, application sharing, conferencing, video—the greater the need for symmetric bandwidth capacity, where download and upload speeds are the same.

Fibre right to the premises can make it much easier to deliver such performance. There is a fair amount of fibre already present, from former cable companies, past and current network operator investments and even social enterprises (not for profit, but not public sector) extending the patchwork quilt into rural areas. But a major problem with fibre is that its reach is not nearly as widespread as copper. Unfortunately the largest element of the cost of providing fibre is not the glass tube or the clever ‘photonic hardware' that drives light through it, but the cost of laying it in trenches underground.

Not all companies have the luxury of fibre passing by in the street, however there are a number of alternative ways to extend the reach of broadband. These range from point-to-point microwave links, and improved range and bandwidth in wireless technologies such as WiMAX to cellular network revisions such as Long Term Evolution (LTE). There are even faster satellite data services which have become relatively affordable due to the digitisation of satellite communication systems, the ability to control and deliver ‘beams' of capacity to the ground and lower cost, mass produced ‘modems', thanks in some part to the TV industry.

While many of the alternatives, especially wireless systems, will deliver a certain level of capacity that probably meets or will meet most of today's needs, they will quickly be outgrown, and they themselves place greater demands on their ‘backhaul' infrastructure—which is typically fibre. Ed Zander, at Sun Microsystems back in 1998 famously said "don't bet against bandwidth", meaning both the appetite to consume, and need to supply more. These appetites and needs show no signs of diminishing.

That appetite for capacity now comes from unexpected quarters. Despite recent growth in the use of high definition video and telepresence, there is no single bandwidth intensive, killer application that hogs all available capacity. Quite a lot of the new demand for network capacity is being driven by laptops with 3G ‘dongles' and devices like the Apple iPhone that have changed mobile behavior, just as low cost ADSL broadband changed domestic computer behaviour.

Almost all applications expect constant network connectivity, and are typically ‘chatty' in their use of it. So too do users expect to be able to connect at all times even for the slightest need that could be met without connection (for example using Google to check spelling or look up an acronym). These are not killer apps, but form a killer cocktail of usage that individuals and organizations have come to rely on. Demand to extend fast broadband connections has not come from growth of a single predictable or orchestrated need, but a vast cacophony of uses.

Finally telecoms providers and politicians are waking up to the value of universal high speed connectivity, now they need to take a more creative approach to weaving together the patchwork quilt. This means introducing alternative investment models—not phone taxes, but public/private combinations through social enterprises and metropolitan partnerships.

This does not require off balance sheet style debt, like many PFI projects, but a more social and public sector view of return on investment, i.e. over a longer period and combining different public sector budgets. It also means dealing more strategically with precious wireless spectrum, instead of treating it simply as an asset to tactically sell off to the highest bidders.

The washup washout of the digital bill hurried through at the end of the last UK parliament, to the frustration of many in the industry, shows that there is still some work to be done to ensure the right steps are taken by government and regulators. This is not just about supplying broadband capacity so that individuals can consume more online media, but about turning the patchwork broadband quilt into a ubiquitous commercial, social and educational blanket—no longer information superhighway, but information supermarket.

By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 16th April 2010 Copyright Quocirca © 2010

Popular science fiction from TV shows like Blake's 7 or Star Trek to movies such as Minority Report is littered with examples of fantastically intuitive user interfaces, and yet as the technologies emerge, the way we like to input to computing devices seems strangely conservative. The history of computing input mechanisms begs several questions:

• Why did pen computing fail to take off in the mid 1980s with Pencept or the early 1990s with Go Corporation?
• Why did voice controlled computing fail to take off in the 1980s? (I used my first voice recognition system on an Apple II in 1980)
• Why did the Tablet PC fail to take off in the early 2000s?

Each may have had its own political, social or commercial limitations, but from a technical sense they were all hampered by applications - not necessarily a lack of them, but their focus and reliance on the legacy of Christopher Latham Sholes - the ‘qwerty' keyboard.

Alternative keyboards have been developed and different layouts tried; some for languages with far more characters; some with alternative layouts for ergonomic reasons, and some quirky multi-touch keyboards with only a handful of keys. However it's fair to say that nothing has massively changed the way people type into computer-like devices until the soaring popularity of the mobile phone, and the desire to send text messages by tapping repeatedly on only a number keypad and the use of predictive texting.

Beyond typing there have been successful alternative input devices in relatively niche applications areas. These include pen-based devices, the Anoto range being a current example, as well as voice enabled applications such as those from Vocollect, and voice recognition systems from companies such as Nuance. Tablets and handhelds have operated successfully in certain industries with devices from Symbol (now Motorola), Psion Teklogix, and companies like Motion computing with its rugged tablet devices used in healthcare and construction.

These devices tend work well in specific industry verticals, or use-cases where the device specific development effort and integration required can be recouped. The input mechanisms are not complex, but neither are they suitable for all occasions or purposes, and so application specific use makes it easier to justify the development commitment.

The evolution of mobile phones into mobile computers has led to greater ubiquity of the embedding of new mechanisms for collecting data ‘input'; touch screens, accelerometers tracking movement, GPS location tracking and direction from compasses.

That Apple's iPhone embedded these technical features would not be interesting on its own, in fact some had been around in other mobile devices - Clarks ‘Trackers' shoes even had a compass embedded in them 40 years ago! Function is not enough alone, it must have a purpose - i.e. make a useful contribution to an application. Apple had to encourage developers to write apps that took advantage of the new features, and yes, wean off some of the dependence on the keyboard.

The use of these features and the popularity of the iPhone and the App Store has led to a shift in application developer thinking - the keyboard is no longer the only way - and this will have a profound effect on other device types, in particular, for device family connections, the iPad. This may, or may not make the iPad a success as the Star Trek ‘tricorder' (universal handheld data access device) for professionals or e-book/e-player for media hungry gadget fans, but it will lead to more creative application input thinking from developers. This in turn will stimulate the tablet market as a whole - there are plenty of vendors waiting to capitalise on Apple's marketing hype - and have spin-off benefits for the other non-keyboard oriented devices.

Applications have become mobile and moved free of the desk, and now they have a great potential to become more free of the keyboard as well.

For more thoughts on stimulating the mobile applications market, download Quocirca's free paper regarding Mobile Application Momentum.

By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 14th April 2010 Copyright Quocirca © 2010

Despite the homogenisation of many high streets and growth of national and international retailers, stores, service levels and customer experiences vary widely. Small, independent or chain, some appear to ‘get it', some do not. In the UK, shopping guru, Mary Portas (distinguished in her early career for window displays at Harrods and Harvey Nichols) has presented TV shows and writes regular columns where she assesses the customer experience offered by a particular store and provides recommendations for change.

If only there was something similar on offer for online.

While online retailing is significant and still growing strongly, especially for some top brands, today the gap between great online commerce and the average site is vast. Over the years, some glaring errors came from the initial thought that ‘internet commerce' was somehow separate from ‘real' commerce. A catalogue company famous for its vast range and quick service launched an online shop with only a handful of products and long delivery times. Airlines and electrical goods suppliers failed to link their web page offer prices to the ‘real' data in their core systems, resulting in customer frustration, reputational damage and in some cases an official rap on the knuckles. The lack of consistent product presentation across was a significant issue then that too often recurs today.

The results then? Well, many were fortunate that the internet was embryonic, some growth pains were tolerated and that communication between those connected to the internet was more related to computer networking than social networking. Now a viral frenzy of tweets, pokes, blogs and links would ensure the social recommendation engines issuing a widely communicated ‘thumbs down'. Since online and tele-sales means many sellers rarely see customers face to face, they have to work even harder at establishing a relevant and valuable relationship with them - service and experience is key.

All retailers are affected by the technology shifts that give potential customers many ways to shop - physical stores, telephone ordering, websites etc - but the issue is more pronounced where the goods or services on offer are becoming commoditised. This is particularly apparent in the field of telecoms where operators have already tried the ‘confusopoly' approach coined by Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams, the multi-service bundling of triple, quad and more-play, and are now having to deal with ‘left field' competitors from California in the form of internet crossovers like Google and Apple.

Margins are tight and falling, services are becoming more complex and increasing support costs, and the infrastructure needs further investment, so how should operators deal with the opportunity and threat of online commerce?

Mainly, by not regarding it as new, separate or different.

Externally, this means integrating their approach to all modes of customer interaction, rather than treating them as separate stovepipes. For some, such as mobile operators with high street stores run as franchises, this might be a little harder to start with, but it is worth the while. It should not matter whether a customer calls in a store - any store - accesses a website, or calls or emails into a contact centre, the response, whether to a sales enquiry or support need should be dealt with simply and consistently.

There also needs to be ‘persistence' in the relationship between operator and customer, so that the customer is recognised and treated as the individual they are, with service and product offering tailored to their needs. This should also extend to allow a customer to use different media as and when they need throughout the sales or support lifecycle. In this way for example, the sales process could start in store, involve phone calls to clarify details, have the transaction confirmed online for customer pickup at yet another physical premises. This gives customer freedom, but also ensures the operator is aware of the whole process.

This awareness needs to translate into a consistent and coherent internal understanding of the relationship across all internal departments. It is pointless having a great sales website and in store experience if the first call for support gets answered with a ‘who are you?'. Internal departments need to be working with a common view of each customer. Not only does this ease the customer experience, it also keeps costs down. For some operators this will be quite a shift, from being product, bearer or network centric to being completely oriented around the customer.

This orientation needs to stretch further too, as existing and potential customers have a vast array of information sources and relationships at their fingertips; news of good and bad experience travels fast across online social networks. Operators need to recognise the social element of commerce and up their game to ensure they are not only a positive part of the online background buzz and conversations, but that they are somehow sufficiently engaged to be influencing them. A quick look over their shoulder to Google or Apple will remind them that the ‘left field' is not only a very inviting place to play, but closer than they think. Whether online, in the high street, via a contact centre or social network, customer experience is key to successful commerce.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 8th April 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

There's a huge drive now for improved enterprise data center performance. Nearly all enterprises are involved nowadays with some level of data-center transformation, either in the planning stages or in outright build-out.

We're seeing many instances where numerous data centers are being consolidated into a powerful core few, as well as completely new, so-called green-field, data centers with modern design and facilities coming online. The heightened activity runs the gamut from retrofitting and designing new data centers to the building and occupying of them.

The latest definition of data center is focused on being what's called fit-for-purpose, of using best practices and assessments of existing assets and correctly projecting future requirements to get that data center just right -- productive, flexible, efficient and well-understood and managed.

Yet these are, by no means, trivial projects. They often involve a tremendous amount of planning and affect IT, facilities, and energy planners. The payoffs are potentially huge, as we'll see, from doing data center design properly -- but the risks are also quite high, if things don't come out as planned.

This podcast examines the lifecycle of data-center design and fulfillment by exploring a successful project at Valero Energy Corp. We're here with two executives from HP and an IT leader at Valero Energy to look at proper planning, data center design and project management.

Please join me in welcoming Cliff Moore, America’s PMO Lead for Critical Facilities Consulting at HP; John Bennett, Worldwide Director of Data Center Transformation Solutions at HP, and John Vann, Vice President of Technical Infrastructure and Operations at Valero Energy Corp. The discussion is moderated by BriefingsDirect's Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Bennett: If you had spoken four years ago and dared to suggest that energy, power, cooling, facilities, and buildings were going to be a dominant topic with CIOs, you would have been laughed at. Yet, that's definitely the case today, and it goes back to the point about IT being modern and efficient.

Data-center transformation, as we've spoken about before, really is about not only significantly reducing cost to an organization -- not only helping them shift their spending away from management and maintenance and into business projects and priorities -- but also helping them address the rising cost of energy, the rising consumption of energy and the mandate to be green or sustainable.

Data-center transformation tries to take a step back, assess the data center strategy and the infrastructure strategy that's appropriate for a business, and then figure how to get from here to there. How do you go from where you are today to where you need to be?

You have organizations that discover that the data centers they have aren't capable of meeting their future needs. ... All of a sudden, you discover that you're bursting at the themes. ... [You] have to support business growth by addressing both infrastructure strategies, but probably also by addressing facilities. That's where facilities really come into the equation and have become a top-of-mind issue for CIOs and IT executives around the world.

You'll need a strong business case, because you're going to have to justify it financially. You're going to have to justify it as an opportunity cost. You're going to have to justify in terms of the returns on investment (ROIs) expected in the business, if they make choices about how to manage and source funds as well.

Growth modeling

One of the things that's different today than even just 10 years ago is that the power and networking infrastructure available around the world is so phenomenal, there is no need to locate data centers close to corporate headquarters.

You may choose to do it, but you now have the option to locate data centers in places like Iceland, because you might be attracted to the natural heating of their environment. It's a good time [for data center transformation] from the viewpoint of land being cheap, but it might be a good time in terms of business capital.

Moore: The majority of the existing data centers out there today were built 10 to 15 years ago, when power requirements and densities were a lot lower.

People are simply running out of power in their data centers. The facilities today that were built 5, 10, or 15 years ago, just do not support the levels of density in power and cooling that clients are asking for going to the future, specifically for blades and higher levels of virtualization.

Some data centers we see out there use the equivalent of half of a nuclear power plant to run. It's very expensive.

It's also estimated that, at today's energy cost, the cost of running a server from an energy perspective is going to exceed the cost of actually buying the server. We're also finding that many customers have done no growth modeling whatsoever regarding their space, power, and cooling requirements for the next 5, 10, or 15 years -- and that's critical.

When a customer is looking to spend $20 million, $50 million, or sometimes well over a $100 million, on a new facility, you’ve got to make sure that it fits within the strategic plan for the business. That's exactly what boards of directors are looking for, before they will commit to spending that kind of money.

We’ve got to find out first off what they need -- what space, power, and cooling requirements. Then, based on the criticality of their systems and applications, we quickly determine what level of availability is required, as well.

This determines the Uptime Institute Tier Level for the facility. Then, we go about helping the client strategize on exactly what kinds of facilities will meet those needs, while also meeting the needs of the business that come down from the board. ... We help them collaboratively develop that strategy in the next 10 to 15 years for the data center future.

One of the things we do, as part of the strategic plan, is help the client determine the best locations for their data centers based on the efficiency in gathering free cooling, for instance, from the environment.

One of the things that the Valero is accomplishing is the lower energy costs, as a result of building their own data centers with a strategic view.

Vann: Valero is a Fortune 500 company in San Antonio, Texas and we're the largest independent refiner in the North America. We produce fuel and other products from 15 refineries and we have 10 ethanol plants.

We market products in 44 states with large distribution network. We're also into alternative fuel with renewables and one of the largest ethanol producers. We have a wind farm up in northern Texas, around Amarillo, that generates enough power to fuel our McKee refinery.

So what drove us to build? We started looking at building in 2005. Valero grew through acquisitions. Our data center, as Cliff and John have mentioned, was no different than others. We began to run into power,space, and cooling issues.

Even though we were doing a lot of virtualization, we still couldn't keep up with the growth. We looked at remodeling and also expanding, but the disruption and risk to the business was just too great. So, we decided it was best to begin to look for another location.

Our existing data center is on headquarters’ campus which is not the best place for the data center, because it's inside one of our office complexes. Therefore, we have water and other potentially disruptive issues close to the data center -- and it was just concerning considering where the data center is located.

[The existing facility] is about seven years old and had been remodeled once. You have to realize Valero was in a growth mode and acquiring refineries. We now have 15 refineries. We were consolidating quite a bit of equipment and applications back into San Antonio, and we just outgrew it.

We were having hard time keeping it redundant and keeping it cool. It was built with one foot of raised floor and, with all the mechanical inside the data center, we lost square footage.

We began to look for alternative places. We also were really fortunate in the timing of our data center review. HP was just beginning their build of the six big facilities that they ended up building or remodeling, and so we were able to get good HP internal expertise to help us as we were beginning our decision of design and building our data center.

The problem with collocation back in those days of 2006, 2007, and 2008, was that there was a premium for space.

So, we really were fortunate to have experts give us some advice and counsel. We did look at collocation. We also looked at other buildings, and we even looked at building another data center on our campus.

As we did our economics, it was just better for us to be able to build our own facility. We were able to find land northwest of San Antonio, where several data centers have been built. We began our own process of design and build for 20,000 square feet of raised floor and began our consolidation process.

Power and cooling are just becoming an enormous problem and most of this because virtualization blades and other technologies that you put in a data center just run a little hotter and they take up the extra power. It's pretty complex to be able to balance your data center with cooling and power, also UPS, generators, and things like that. It just becomes really complex. So, building a new data center really put us in the forefront.

We had a joint team of HP and the Valero Program Management Office. It went really well the way that was managed. We had design teams. We had people from networking architecture, networking strategy and server and storage, from both HP and Valero, and that went really well. Our construction went well. Fortunately, we didn’t have any bad weather or anything to slow us down; we were right on time and on budget.

Probably the most complex was the migration, and we had special migration plans. We got help from the migration team at HP. That was successful, but it took a lot of extra work.

Probably we'd put more project managers on managing the project, rather than using technical people to manage the project. Technical folks are really good at putting the technology in place, but they really struggle at putting good solid plans in place. But overall, I'd just say that migration is probably the most complex.

Bennett: Modernizing your infrastructure brings energy benefits in its own right, and it enhances the benefits of your virtualization and consolidation activities.

We certainly recommend that people take a look at doing these things. If you do some of these things, while you're doing the data center design and build, it can actually make your migration experience easier. You can host your new systems in the new data center and be moving software and processes, as opposed to having to stage and move servers and storage. It's a great opportunity.

It's a great chance to start off with a clean networking architecture, which also helps both with continuity and availability of services, as well as cost.

It can be a big step forward in terms of standardizing your IT environment, which is recommended by many industry analysts now in terms of preparing for automation or to reduce management and maintenance cost. You can go further and bring in application modernization and rationalization to take a hard look at your apps portfolio. So, you can really get these combined benefits and advantages that come from doing this.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Read a full transcript or download a copy. Sponsor: HP.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 6th April 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

The latest BriefingsDirect Analyst Insights Edition, Vol. 51, focuses on cloud computing and dollars and cents. Our panel dives into more than the technology, security, and viability issues that have dominated a lot of cloud discussions lately -- and move to the economics and the impact on buyers and sellers of cloud services.

When you ask any one person how cloud will affect their costs, you're bound to get a different answer each time. No one really knows, but the agreement comes when the questions move to, "Will cloud models impact how buyers and providers price their technology? And over the long-term what will buyers come to expect in terms of IT value?"

What comes when we move to a cloud based pay-per value pricing, buying, and budgeting for IT approach? How does the shift to high-volume, low-margin services and/or subscription models affect the IT vendor landscape? How does it affect the pure cloud and software-as-a-service (SaaS) providers, and perhaps most importantly, how do cloud models affect the buy side?

This periodic discussion and dissection of IT infrastructure related news and events, with a panel of industry analysts and guests, comes to you with the help of charter sponsor, Active Endpoints, maker of the ActiveVOS business process management system.

Join the panel of Dave Linthicum, CTO of Bick Group, a cloud computing and data-center consulting firm; Michael Krigsman, CEO of Asuret and a blogger on ZDNet on IT failures as well as writer of analyst reports for IDC, and Sandy Rogers, an independent industry analyst.

Here are some excerpts:

Linthicum: We've had a tendency to focus on reducing cost over the last few years, with the recession and all, and ultimately cloud computing and SOA are about bringing strategic value back into the business in the form of IT.

I was listening to your podcast with Salesforce.com's Peter Coffee, talking about service oriented architecture (SOA) and cloud computing, and he said something that was very profound.

The fact of the matter is that, if you're looking for cheap IT, we can give you cheap IT. However, you're not going to be able to keep up with the competitive value that IT needs to bring to your enterprise. To get that competitive value, you're going to have to spend additional money.

The ability to align your IT resources to the needs of the business quickly, get into markets fast, delight customers, sell more, and create supply chain integration systems that provide with frictionless commerce is really where the value is in this.

The myth is that cloud computing is always going to be less expensive. I think cloud computing typically is going to be a better, more strategic, more agile architecture, but it's also typically going to be more expensive, at least on the outcome.

We're probably going to have to spend more money initially. That's really what the takeaway is from the initial cloud-computing projects that I am involved in. At the end of the day, it's about strategic use of technology. Ultimately, cost reduction should be part of the result, but in getting there, we're going to have to spend additional dollars.

Rogers: A lot of the enterprises are going to learn from those organizations that have to act at web scale and understand which are the right use-cases to put out there and how to leverage it. ... A lot of the innovation that we see happening on the cloud is really other providers that are starting to build their businesses on the cloud.

They're learning that there is a web-scale business to be obtained out there, and that's really where we are seeing the biggest innovation.

They're learning that there is a web-scale business to be obtained out there. What is also really interesting is that it's more than just technology. It's really transitioning to engage with services and services providers. Those who are attempting to move out there onto the cloud are learning that that is a big piece of the puzzle. Many technology providers have to grow into the role of a service provider.

Krigsman: I ask the question ... Is cheap IT really the goal [of cloud computing]? To me, the real question, the longer-term strategic question, is "How does this new IT infrastructure map onto our business processes and our business requirements looking long-term?" There are some mismatches and mismatched expectations.

When you have one group that is expecting certain types of outcomes and results and you have another group that is capable of delivering results that don’t match the first, namely between buyers and sellers [of cloud services], then the end result is predictable failure or disappointment somewhere down the line.

Linthicum: Cloud computing does require lots of changes. You're going to have to redo your infrastructure, as I write in my book, to leverage newer architectural patterns, such as SOA, and that's typically very expensive to get out and access the services that are available to you on demand, out of the cloud. So that's an expense onto itself.

You're going to have to retrain and re-skill your people within your data center, all the way up into your executive ranks, on what cloud is able to do and how to manage, govern, and secure cloud. You're going to have to pay for the cloud computing providers, which in many instances are going to be less expensive than on-premise systems, but in many other instances are going to be much more costly than on-premise systems.

Companies that think tactically, in quarter to quarter expenses, and consider IT kind of an expense that they rather not have to spend money on are going to fall by the wayside within cloud computing. They're just not going to get it.

It's very much like the Internet was in the mid-'90s. Suddenly, it's a big huge deal, and companies that got on board four or five years ago are leading the market, where companies that suddenly were trying to play catch-up football in 1999, 2000, found that the market left them behind. Many of those companies just went out of business, because they didn’t see the wave coming. Cloud computing is going to be very much like that.

Improvement model

I'm bullish on cloud computing being a catalyst for architectural change and typically for the better. So cloud is not great at security and governance as of yet, but in many instances it's much better than the current security and governance in lots of these existing enterprises, which is poorly defined or nonexistent.

Ultimately, as people revamp their architectures to leverage cloud, moving into SOA, looking at cloud as an architectural option for bit pieces of parts of their data and parts of their processes, they go through an improvement model.

They go through some architectural changes, create new governance models, and create new security models. They leverage identity management versus simple encryption. They learn to be more secure. If they didn't have a chief security officer, they may now have a one, if they are moving into cloud.

Special offer: Download a free, supported 30-day trial of Active Endpoint's ActiveVOS at www.activevos.com/insight.

The target systems that are using cloud computing, the target architectures that are leveraging cloud computing, are almost always more secure than the traditional systems from which they came. That doesn't mean they're completely secure and without issues, especially in the cloud computing side.

But people make logical choices about what pieces of information and what processes to run in the cloud and which ones to run on-premise based on security models, and typically, if they are revamping into a new architecture, they are always going to be more secure and better governed, if the architects know what they're doing.

The pay-as-you-go model of cloud computing, even though it can be more expensive in many instances, when you really kind of amortize the cost over many years, is something that's attractive to at least United States IT. It's not always to foreign corporations, but definitely in the United States.

We like the pay-as-you-go cable bill kind of thing that we get, and also the ability to turn the stuff off or move away from it, if we need to, without having a big footprint already in the data center and things we need to deinstall and millions of dollars of hardware that we have to sell on Craigslist if the thing doesn’t work out.

The selling point

That becomes a selling point and really is part and parcel of value of cloud computing. But, it also can be the Achilles' heel of cloud computing, because ultimately people are going to make decisions around financial metrics that may not be realistic. If you look at those financial metrics in light of the requirements of the business, in many instances people are buying cloud computing because of the cost model and not necessarily the strategic value it's going to have to the architecture and therefore have to the business.

Krigsman: Driving toward cloud changes the architecture and requires proper governance. The lack of governance that exists today across the industry is pretty startling. So as organizations move in this direction, there is simply no question that the cultural dimension of getting IT to work more effectively with the business side and so forth must drive with it.

If it doesn't, then, in the end, the solutions that are built with cloud will still have the same set of problems from a business standpoint that current IT solutions have today. This has nothing to do with technology. This is a matter of collaboration and communication across these various information silos.

Rogers: One thing that we're finding from those cloud service providers that had originally targeted the end business customer, is that they're working with the CIOs and the IT departments more. They're working through those issues of security and having backup contingency plans.

It's just a state of education that varying parties within the IT ecosystem have to come on board and understand how to leverage this.

One of the biggest points ... is it's still a mixture of different technologies that have to come together. That’s always been one of the biggest, complex roles that IT needs to serve.

Right now, there are a lot of dependencies on specific technologies internally. A lot of organizations do not want to make those same mistakes with external cloud providers. They're really looking to the IT group as an adviser to guide them and help them in the decisions moving forward.

Krigsman: This is a fundamental point -- the cloud computing winners are going to be those who combine architectural vision and discipline with superior governance and who are also capable of making the adaptive cultural and business transformation changes, such as you were just talking about, things like budgeting, for example. Success in the cloud will require a mixture of all of these things together.

Linthicum: If you are in the IT world today, you need to understand that if you are moving to a new architecture, you have to commit to a certain amount of value that comes back to the business. Typically, it's going to be a five-year horizon in the United States, perhaps a 10-year horizon in the Asia-Pacific. But, that value has to be shown and that has to be returned. If it's not returned, then ultimately it's going to be considered a failure.

Start now

You need to start committing to this stuff right now and putting some skin in the game, and I think a lot of people in these IT organizations are very politically savvy and want to protect their positions. There are a few of them who want to put that skin in the game right now.

I think we are going to see kind of an unfairness in business. People who are starting businesses these days and building it around cloud infrastructures are learning to accept the fact that a lot of their IT is going to reside out on the Internet and the cost effective nature of that. They're going to have a huge strategic advantage over legacy businesses, people who've been around for years and years and years.

There are going to be a lot of traditional companies out there that are going to be looking at these vendors and learning from them.

As they grow and they start to go public and they start to grow as a business, they get up to a half a billion mark, they are going to find that they are able to provide a much more higher cost and price advantage over their competitors and just eat their lunch ultimately.

We're going to see that, not necessarily now, because those guys are typically smaller and just up and coming, but in five years, as they start to grow up, their infrastructure is just going to be much more cost effective and they are just going to run circles around the competition.

... Ultimately, it would be about the ability to leverage technology that's pervasive around the world. What you're going to find is the biggest uptake of any kind of new technological shift is going to be in the United States or the North American marketplaces. We're seeing that in the U.S. right now.

We could find that the cloud computing advantage it has brought to the corporate U.S. infrastructure is going to be significant in the next four years, based on the European enterprises out there and some of the Asia-Pacific enterprises out there that will play catch-up toward the end.
Special offer: Download a free, supported 30-day trial of Active Endpoint's ActiveVOS at www.activevos.com/insight.
Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Read a full transcript or download a copy. Charter Sponsor: Active Endpoints.

You may also be interested in:

• CERN's Evolution to Cloud Computing Portends Revolutions in Extreme IT Productivity
  
  
• Cloud Computing by Industry: Novel Ways to Collaborate Via Extended Business
  Processes
  
  
• The Open Group's Cloud Work Group Advances Understanding of Cloud-Use Benefits for Enterprises

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 1st March 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

In a move to tap into the small- to mid-sized business (SMB) data center market, Hewlett-Packard (HP) just rolled out a set of services aimed at helping smaller outfits drive the same IT efficiencies as larger enterprises.

The portfolio is designed to improve efficiency and increase IT budget flexibility, while mitigating risks and maximizing return on investment (ROI) from existing IT skills and assets. The services also target dealing with rapid change and the simplifying of management of multi-vendor environments. HP also launched procurement options for custom integration operations and improvement services. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

“Our new services are based on drivers that impact owners of small- to mid-sized data centers,” said Ian Jagger, worldwide marketing manager of Infrastructure and Operations for HP’s Technology Services Group. “These services help our customers deal with the challenge of managing IT complexity and sprawl, space and infrastructure limitations, and limited IT budgets and staff.”

Improving operational efficiency
Recognizing the SMB organizations' requirements around speed, efficiency and 24/7 resource accessibility with shared virtual IT services, HP is delivering four new services designed to help clients gain tighter environment-wide control and broader, deeper visibility into support-related functions.

HP Multivendor Support Services works to help clients increase service levels and reduce the complexity and costs of managing heterogeneous IT environments. By exercising global buying power among vendors and suppliers, HP said it can effectively lower the cost of support contracts.

These services are entirely differentiated because only licensed engineers can deliver these services and HP’s competitors don’t have licensed engineers.

“We have been offering multi-vendor support solutions to our customers,” says Dionne Morgan, worldwide solutions marketing manager for HP’s Technology Services group. “In addition to IBM and Dell servers, we also now support Sun servers and Sun Solaris 10 for HP ProLiant servers. And for HP Integrity servers we’re now supporting Novell, SUSE Linux and Microsoft Windows Server 2008.”

On the operational efficiency front, HP also announced HP Insight Remote Support to monitor a customer’s environment around the clock and provide remote diagnostics, troubleshooting and a support solution. HP added support for VMware virtual environments. Meanwhile, HP Active Chat offers real-time Web chat support for problem and the HP Data Center Training Symposium will move to help companies develop a custom training plan to increase the effectiveness of IT staff.

Increasing computing capacity
HP also announced value assessment services structured for data centers up to 5,000 square feet in size. The services work to help SMBs find ways to increase computing capacity and cut energy costs.

The new services include Basic Capacity Analysis for Smaller Footprints Assessment, Infrastructure Condition and Capacity Analysis for Smaller Footprints Assessment, and Energy Efficiency Analysis for Smaller Footprints Assessment.

“These services are entirely differentiated because only licensed engineers can deliver these services and HP’s competitors don’t have licensed engineers,” Jagger says. “Our competitors have to partner with specialist companies to deliver these services. We’re also restructuring these services to be sold by our channel partners.”

Offering flexible purchase options
Finally, HP promises to make it easier for SMBs to procure value services that will help them better manage limited resources and drive business value from their technology infrastructure through HP Units of Service and HP Proactive Select Services.

“We’ve taken the customized services available from our technical services portfolio and converted them into what we call Units of Service,” Jagger says. “A Unit of Service is a deliverable at a highly granular level. Any given custom service could be made up of multiple Units of Service.”

HP Proactive Select Services let clients move to a variable budget model, acquiring expert resources on-demand to address changing data center needs.

HP Units of Service gives SMBs access to value services from HP through channel partners that aim to maximize ROI and set the stage for business growth. For example, SMBs can tap into HP custom data center consulting services such as relocation, integration, operations and improvement.

HP Proactive Select Services let clients move to a variable budget model, acquiring expert resources on-demand to address changing data center needs. HP has included Server Firmware Update Installation Service, Technical Online Seminars, Virtual Tape Library Health Check and LeftHand SAN/iQ Update Service to its portfolio.

“With these services, companies can focus their IT staff on strategic IT investments that differentiate them in the marketplace,” Jagger says. “What you’re seeing here is more and more services brought to customers at a value level through the channel that allows them to focus where they can drive the greatest ROI from staff.”

The SMB IT services and support market is ripe for efficiency and lower total costs. And the SMB arena is also a prime user for upcoming cloud and hybrid-sourced services. So now everything as a service can go anywhere.

BriefingsDirect contributor Jennifer LeClaire provided editorial assistance and research on this post. She can be reached at http://www.linkedin.com/in/jleclaire and http://www.jenniferleclaire.com.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 23rd February 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

Nowadays, CIOs need to both cut costs and increase performance. Energy has never been more important in working toward this productivity advantage.

It's now time for IT leaders to gain control over energy use—and misuse—in enterprise data centers. More often than not, very little energy capacity analysis and planning is being done on data centers that are five years old or older. Even newer data centers don’t always gather and analyze the available energy data being created amid all of the components.

Finally, smarter, more comprehensive energy planning tools and processes are being directed at this problem. It requires a lifecycle approach from the data centers to more toward fuller automation.

And so automation software for capacity planning and monitoring has been newly designed and improved to best match long-term energy needs and resources in ways that cut total costs, while gaining the available capacity from old and new data centers.

Such data gathering, analysis and planning can break the inefficiency cycle that plagues many data centers where hotspots can mismatch cooling needs, and underused and under-needed servers are burning up energy needlessly. These so-called Smart Grid solutions jointly cut data center energy costs, reduce carbon emissions, and can dramatically free up capacity from overburdened or inefficient infrastructure.

By gaining far more control over energy use and misuse, solutions such as Hewlett Packard's (HP) Smart Grid for Data Center can increase capacity from existing facilities by 30–50 percent.

This podcast features two executives from HP to delve more deeply into the notion of Smart Grid for Data Center. Now join Doug Oathout, Vice President of Green IT Energy Servers and Storage at HP, and John Bennett, Worldwide Director of Data Center Transformation Solutions at HP. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Bennett: Data center transformation (DCT) is focused on three core concepts, and energy is another key focus for that all to work. The drivers behind data center transformation are customers who are trying to reduce their overall IT spending, either flowing it to the bottom-line or, in most cases, trying to shift that spending away from management and maintenance and onto business projects.

We also see increasing mandates to improve sustainability. It might be expressed as energy efficiency in handling energy costs more effectively or addressing green IT.

DCT is really about helping customers build out a data center strategy and an infrastructure strategy. That is aligned to their business plans and goals and objectives. That infrastructure might be a traditional shared infrastructure model. It might be a fabric infrastructure model of which HP’s converged infrastructure is probably the best and most complete example of that in the marketplace today. And, it may indeed be moving to private cloud or, as I believe, some combination of the above for a lot of customers.

The secret is doing so through an integrated roadmap of data-center projects, like consolidation, business continuity, energy, and such technology initiatives as virtualization and automation.

Energy has definitely been a major issue for data-center customers over the past several years. The increased computing capability and demand has increased the power needed in the data center. Many data centers today weren’t designed for modern energy consumption requirements. Even data centers that were designed even five years ago are running out of power, as they move to these dense infrastructures. Of course, older facilities are even further challenged. So, customers can address energy by looking at their facilities.

Increasingly, we're finding that we need to look at management—managing the infrastructure and managing the facilities in order to address the energy cost issues and the increasing role of regulation and to manage energy related risk in the data center.

That brings us not only to energy as a key initiative in DCT, but on Smart Grid for Data Center as a key way of managing it effectively and dynamically.

Oathout: We're really talking about is a problem around energy capacity in data centers. Most IT professionals or IT managers never see an energy bill from the utility. It's usually handled by the facility. They never really concentrate on solving the energy consumption problem.

Where problems have arisen in the past is when a facility person says that they can’t deploy the next server or storage unit, because they're out of capacity to build that new infrastructure to support a line of business. They have to build a new data center. What we're seeing now is customers starting to peel the onion back a little bit, trying to find out where the energy is going, so they can increase the life of their data center.

To date, very few clients have deployed comprehensive software strategies or facility strategies to corral this energy consumption problem. Customers are turning their focus to how much energy is being absorbed by what and then, how do they get the capacity of the data center increase so they can support the new workloads.

What we're seeing today is that software, hardware, and people need to come together in a process that John described in DCT, an energy audit, or energy management.

All those things need to come together, so that customers can now start taking apart their data center, from an analysis perspective, to find out where they are either over-provisioned or under-provisioned, from a capacity standpoint, so they know where all the energy is going. Then, they can then take some steps to get more capability out of their current solution or get more capability out of their installed equipment by measuring and monitoring the whole environment.

The concept of converged infrastructure applies to data center energy management. You can deploy a particular workload onto an IT infrastructure that is optimally designed to run efficiently and optimally designed to continually run in an efficient way, so that you know you're getting the most productive work from the least energy and the more energy efficient equipment infrastructure sitting underneath it.

As workloads grow over time, you then have the auditing capability built into the software ... so that you can add more resources to that pool to run that application. You're not over-provisioning from the start and you're not under-provisioning, but you're getting the optimal settings over time. That's what's really important for energy, as well as efficiency, as well as operating within a data center environment.

You must have tools, software, and hardware that is not only efficient, but can be optimized and run in an optimized way over a long period of time.

The key to that is to understand where the power is going. One of the first things we recommend to a client is to look at how much power is being brought into a data center and then where is it going.

What you want to do is start collecting that information through software to find out how much power is being absorbed by the different pieces of IT equipment and associate that with the workloads that are running on them. Then, you have a better view of what you're doing and how much energy you're using.

Then, you can do some analysis and use some applications like HP SiteScope to do some performance analysis, to say, "Could I match that workload to some other platform in the infrastructure or am I running it in optimal way?"

Over time, what you can do is you can migrate some of your older legacy workloads to more efficient newer IT equipment, and therefore you are basically building up a buffer in your data center, so that you can then go deploy new workloads in that same data center.

You use that software to your benefit, so that you're freeing up capacity, so that you can support the new workload that the businesses need.

The energy curve today is growing at about 11 percent annually, and that's the amount IT is spending on energy in a data center.

Bennett: That's really key, Doug, as a concept, because the more you do at this infrastructure level, the less you need to change the facilities themselves. Of course, the issue with facilities-related work is that it can affect both quality of service and outages and may end up costing you a pretty penny, if you have to retrofit or design new data centers.

Oathout: Smart Grid for Data Centers gives a CIO or a data-center manager a blueprint to manage the energy being consumed within their infrastructure. The first thing that we do with a Data Center Smart Grid is map out what is hooked up to electricity in the data center, everything from PDUs, UPSs, and error handlers to the IT equipment servers, networking and storage. It's really understanding how that all works together and how the whole topology comes together.

The second thing we do is visualize all the data. It's very hard to say that this server, that server, or that piece of facilities equipment uses this much power and has this kind of capacity. You really need to see the holistic picture, so you know where the energy is being used and understand where the issues are within a data center.

It's really about visualizing that data, so you can take action on it. Then, it's about setting up policies and automating those procedures to reduce the energy consumption or to manage energy consumption that you have in the data center.

Today, our servers and our storage are much more efficient than the ones we had three or four years ago, but we also add the capability to power cap a lot of the IT equipment. Not only can you get an analysis that says, "Here is how much energy is being consumed," you can actually set caps on the IT equipment that says you can’t use more than this. Not only can you monitor and manage your power envelope, you can actually get a very predictable one by capping everything in your data center.

You know exactly, how much the max power is going to be for all that equipment. Therefore, you can do much better planning. You get much more efficiency out of your data center, and you get more predictable results, which is one of the things that IT really strives for, from an SLA to getting those predictable results, day in and day out.

So, really Data Center Smart Grid for the infrastructure is about mapping the infrastructure. It's about visualizing it to make decisions. Then, it's about automating and capping what you’ve got, so you have better predictable results and you're managing it, so that you are not having out wires, you're not having problems in your data centers, and you're meeting your SLA.

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 February 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

The next BriefingsDirect Analyst Insights Edition, Volume 49, hones in on the predictions for IT industry growth and impact, now that the recession appears to have bottomed out. We're going to ask our distinguished panel of analysts and experts for their top five predictions for IT growth through 2010 and beyond.

To help us gaze into the IT trends crystal ball we are joined by our panel: Jim Kobielus, senior analyst at Forrester Research; Joe McKendrick, independent analyst and prolific blogger; Tony Baer, senior analyst at Ovum; Brad Shimmin, principal analyst at Current Analysis; Dave Linthicum, CEO of Blue Mountain Labs; Dave Lounsbury, vice-president of collaboration services at The Open Group; Jason Bloomberg, managing partner at ZapThink, and JP Morgenthal, independent analyst and IT consultant. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Shimmin: Mine are geared toward collaboration and conferencing. The first and most obvious is that clouds are going to become less cloudy. Vendors, particularly those in the collaboration space, are going to start to deliver solutions that are actually a blend of both cloud and on-premise.

We've seen Cisco take this approach already with front-ending some web conferencing to off-load bandwidth requirements at the edge and to speed internal communications. IBM, at least technically, is poised do the same with Foundations, their appliances line, and LotusLive, their cloud-based solution.

With vendors like these that are going to be pulling hybrid, premise/cloud, and appliance/service offerings, it's going to really let companies, particularly those in the small and medium business (SMB) space, work around IT constraints without sacrificing the control and ownership of key processes and data, which in my mind is the key, and has been one of the limiting factors of cloud this year.

Number two: I have "software licensing looks like you." As with the housing market, it's really a buyer's market right now for software. It's being reflected in how vendors are approaching selling their software. Customers have the power to demand software pricing that better reflects their needs, whether it's servers or users.

So, taking cues from both the cloud and the open-source licensing vendors out there, we will see some traditional software manufacturers really set up a "pick your poison" buffet. You can have purchase options that are like monthly or yearly subscriptions or flat perpetual licenses that are based on per seat, per server, per CPU, per request, per processor, or per value unit—with a shout out at IBM there—or any of the above.

You put those together in a way that is most beneficial to you as a customer to meet your use case. We saw last year with web conferencing software that you could pick between unlimited usage with a few seats or unlimited seats with limited usage. You can tailor what you pay to what you need.

Third for me is the mobile OS wars are going to heat up. I'm all done with the desktop. I'm really thinking that it's all about the Google Chrome/Android. I know there's a little bit of contention there, but Google Chrome/Android, Symbian, RIM, Apple iPhone, Windows Mobile, all those devices will be the new battle ground for enterprise users.

I think the weapons will be user facing enterprise apps that work in concert with line-of-business solutions on the back-end. We'll see the emergence of native applications, particularly within the collaboration space, that are capable of fully maximizing the underlying hardware of these devices, and that's really key. Capabilities like geo-positioning, simultaneous web invoice and, eventually, video, are really going to take off across all these platforms this year.

But, the true battle for this isn't going to be in these cool nifty apps. It's really going to be in how these vendors can hopefully turn these devices into desktops, in terms of provisioning, security, visibility, governance, etc. That, to me, is going to be where they're going to either win or lose this year.

Four is "The Grand Unification Theory"—the grand unification of collaboration. That's going to start this year. We're no longer going to talk about video conferencing, web conferencing, telepresence, and general collaboration software solutions as separate concerns. You're still going to have PBXs, video codecs, monitors, cameras, desk phones, and all that stuff being sold as point solutions to fill specific requirements, like desktop voice or room-based video conferencing and the like.

But, these solutions are really not going to operate in complete ignorance of one another as they have in the past. Vendors with capabilities or partnerships spanning these areas, in particular—I'm pointing out Cisco and Microsoft here—can bring, and will be bringing, facets of these together technically to enable users to really participate in collaboration efforts, using their available equipment.

And last but not least ... Google Wave is really going to kick in in 2010. I may be stating the obvious, or I maybe stating something that's going to be completely wrong, but I really feel that this is going to be the year that traditional enterprise collaboration players jump head long into this Google Wave pool in an effort to really cash in on what's already a super-strong mind share within the consumer ranks.

Even though they have a limited access to the beta right now, there are over a million users of it, that are chunking away at this writing code and using Wave.

Of course, Google hosted rendition will excel in supporting consumer tasks like collaborative apps and role playing games. That's going to be big.

Linthicum: My top five are going to be, number one, cloud computing goes mainstream. That's a top prediction, I'm just seeing the inflection point on that.

I know I'm going out on the edge on this one. Go to indeed.com and do a search on the cloud-computing jobs postings. As I posted on my InfoWorld blog few weeks ago, it's going up at an angle that I have never seen at any time in the history of IT. The amount of growth around cloud computing is just amazing. Of course, it's different aspects of cloud computing, not just architecture, with people who are cloud computing developers and things like that.

The Global 2000 and the government, the Global 1, really haven't yet accepted cloud computing, even though it's been politically correct for some time to do so. The reason is the lack of control, security concerns, and privacy issues, and, of course, all the times the cloud providers went down. The Google outages and the loss of stuff with T-Mobile, hasn't really helped, but ultimately people are gearing up, hiring up, and training up for cloud computing.

We are going to see a huge inflection point in cloud computing. This can be more mainstream in Global 2000 than it has been in the past. It's largely been the domain of SMBs, pilot projects, things like that. It's going to be a huge deal in 2010 and people are going to move into cloud computing in some way, shape, or form, if they are in an organization.

The next is privacy becomes important. Facebook late last year pulled a little trick, where they changed the privacy settings, and you had to go back and reset your privacy settings. So, in essence, if you weren’t diligent about looking at the privacy settings within your Facebook account and your friends list, your information was out on the Internet and people could see it.

The reason is that they're trying to monetize people who are using Facebook. They're trying to get at the information and put the information out there so it's searchable by the search engines. They get the ad revenue and all the things that are associated with having a big mega social media site.

People are going to move away from these social media sites that post their private information, and the social media sites are going to react to that. They're going to change their policies by the end of 2010, and there's going to be a big uproar at first.

Next, the cloud crashes make major new stories. We've got two things occurring right now. We've got a massive move into the cloud. That was my first prediction. We have the cloud providers trying to scale up, and perhaps they’ve never scaled up to the levels that they are going to be expected to scale to in 2010. That's ripe for disaster.

A lot of these cloud providers are going to over extend and over sell, and they're going to crash. Performance is going to go down—very analogous to AOL’s outage issues, when the Internet first took off.

We're going to see people moving to the cloud, and cloud providers not able to provide them with the service levels that they need. We're going to get a lot of stories in the press about cloud providers going away for hours at a time, data getting lost, all these sorts of things. It's just a matter of growth in a particular space. They're growing very quickly, they are not putting as much R&D into what these cloud systems should do, and ultimately that's going to result in some disasters.

Next, Microsoft becomes cloud relevant. Microsoft, up to now, has been the punch line of all cloud computing. It had the Azure platform out there. They've had a lot of web applications and things like that. They really have a bigger impact in the cloud than most people think, even though when we think of cloud, we think of Amazon, Google, and larger players out there.

With Azure coming into its own in the first quarter of next year in the rise of their office automation applications for the cloud, you are going to see a massive amount of people moving to the Microsoft platform for development, deployment, infrastructure, and the office automation application. The Global 2000 that are already Microsoft players and the government that has a big investment in Microsoft are going to move in that direction.

Suddenly, you're going to see Microsoft with a larger share of the cloud, and they're going to be relevant very quickly. In the small- and medium-sized business, it's still going to be the domain of Google, and state and local governments are still be going to be the domain of Google, but Microsoft is going to end up ruling the roost by the end of 2010.

Finally, the technology feeding frenzy, which is occurring right now. People see the market recovering. There is money being put back into the business. That was on the sidelines for a while. People are going to use that money to buy companies. I think there is going to be a big feeding frenzy in the service-oriented architecture (SOA) world, in the business intelligence (BI) world, and definitely in the cloud-computing world.

Lots of these little companies that you may not have heard about, which may have some initial venture funding, are suddenly going to disappear. Google has been taking these guys out left and right. You just don’t hear about it. You could do a podcast just on the Google acquisitions that have occurred this week. That's going to continue and accelerate in 2010 to a point where it's almost going to be ridiculous.

Lounsbury: I'm going to jump on the cloud bandwagon initially. We’ve seen huge amounts of interest across the board in cloud and, particularly, increasing discussions about how people make sense of cloud at the line-of-business level.

Another bold prediction here is that the cloud market is going to continue to grow, and we'll see that inflection point that Dave Linthicum mentioned. But, I believe that we're going to see the segmentation of that into two overarching markets, an infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) or platform-as-a-service market (PaaS) and software-as-a-service (SaaS) market. So that's my number one prediction.

We'll see the continued growth in the acceptance by SMBs of the IaaS and PaaS for the cost and speed reasons. But, the public IaaS and PaaS are going to start to become the gateway drug for medium- to large-size enterprises. You're going to see them piloting in public or shared environments, but they are going to continue to move back toward that locus of controlling their own resources in order to manage risk and security, so that they can deliver their service levels that their customers expect.

My third prediction, again in cloud, is that SaaS will continue to gain mainstream acceptance at all levels in the enterprise, from small to large. What you’ll see there is a lot of work on interfaces and APIs and how people are going to mash up cloud services and bring them into their enterprise architectures.

Of course all of this is set against the context that all distributed computing activities are set against, which is security and privacy issues.

This is actually going to be another trend that Dave Linthicum has mentioned as a blurring of a line between SaaS and SOA at the enterprise level. You’ll see these well on the way to emerging as disciplines in 2010.

The fourth general area is that all of this interest in cloud and concern about uptake at the enterprise level is going to drive the development of cloud deployment and development skills as a recognized job function in the IT world, whether it's internal to the IT department or as a consultancy. Obviously, as a consultancy, we look to the cloud to provide elasticity of deployment and demand and that's going to demand an elastic workforce.

So the question will be how do you know you are getting a skilled person in that area. I think you'll see the rise of a lot of enterprise-level artifacts such as business use cases, enterprise architecture tools, and analytic tools. Potentially, what we'll see in 2010 is the beginning of the development of a body of knowledge: practitioners in cloud. We'll start to recognize that as a specialty the way we currently recognize SOA as a specialty.

Of course all of this is set against the context that all distributed computing activities are set against, which is security and privacy issues. I don’t know if this is a prediction or not, but I wonder whether we're going to see our cloud harbor in 2010 its first big crash and the first big breach.

We've already mentioned privacy here. That's going to become increasingly a public topic, both in terms of the attention in the mainstream press and increasing levels of government attention.

There have been some fits and starts at the White House level about the cyber czar and things like that, but every time you turn around in Washington now, you see people discussing cyber security. How we're going to grow our capability in cyber security and increasing recognition of cyber security risk in mainstream business are going to be emerging hot topics of 2010.

Kobielus: Number one: IT is increasingly going to in-source much of BI development of reports, queries, dashboards, and the like to the user through mash up self-service approaches, SaaS, flexible visualization, and so forth, simply because they have to.

IT is short staffed. We're still in a recession essentially. IT budgets are severely constrained. Manpower is severely constrained. Users are demanding mashups and self-service capabilities. It's coming along big time, not only in terms of enterprise deployment, but all the BI vendors are increasingly focused on self-service solution portfolios.

Number two: The users who do more of the analytics development are going to become developers in their own right. That may sound crazy based on the fact that traditionally data mining is done by a cadre of PhD statisticians and others who are highly specialized.

Question analysis, classification and segmentation, and predictive analytics is coming into the core BI stack in a major way. IBM’s acquisition of SPSS clearly shows that not only is IBM focusing there, but other vendors in this space, especially a lot of smaller players, already have some basic predictive analytics capabilities in their portfolios or plan to release them in 2010.

Basically, we're taking data mining out of the hands of the rocket scientists and giving it to the masses through very user-friendly tools. That's coming in 2010.

Number three: There will be an increasing convergence of analytics and transactional computing, and the data warehouse is the hub of all that. More-and-more transactional application logic will be pushed down to be executed inside of the data warehouse.

The data warehouse is a greater cloud, because that's where the data lives and that's where the CPU power is, the horse power. We see Exadata, Version 2 from Oracle. We see Aster Data, nCluster Version 4.0. And, other vendors are doing similar things, pointing ahead to the coming decade, when the data warehouse becomes a complete analytic application server in its own right—analytics plus transaction.

Number four: We're seeing, as I said, that predictive analytics is becoming ever more important and central to where enterprises are going with BI and the big pool of juicy data that will be brought into predictive model. Much of it is coming from the whole Web 2.0 sphere and from social networks—Twitters, Facebooks and the like, and blogs. That's all highly monetizable content, as Dave Linthicum indicated.

We're seeing that social network analysis has a core set of algorithms and approaches for advanced analytics that are coming in a big way to data mining tools, text analytics tools, and to BI. Companies are doing serious marketing campaign planning, optimization, and so forth, based on a lot of that information streaming in real-time. It's customer sentiment in many ways. You know pretty much immediately whether your new marketing campaign is a hit or a flop, because customers are tweeting all about it.

That's going to be a big theme in 2010 and beyond. Social network analysis really is a core business intelligence for marketing and maintaining and sustaining business in this new wave.

And, finally, number five: Analytics gets dirt cheap. Right now, we're in the middle of a price war for the enterprise data warehousing stack hardware and software. Servers and storage, plus the database licenses, query tools, loading tools, and BI are being packaged pretty much everywhere into appliances that are one-stop shopping, one throat to choke, quick-deploy solutions that are pre-built.

Increasingly, they'll be for specific vertical and horizontal applications and will be available to enterprises for a fraction of what it would traditionally cost them to acquire all those components separately and figure it out all themselves. The vendors in the analytics market are all going appliance. They're fighting with each other to provide the cheapest complete application on the market.

McKendrick: My number one trend is the impact of the economy. By all indications, 2010 is going to be a growth year in the economy. We're probably in this V shape.

See, I'm actually an optimist, not a pessimist. The world may end in 2012, but for 2010, we're going to have a great economy. It's going to move forward.

For this decade, we're looking forward to the rise of something called "social commerce," where the markets are user-driven and are conversations.

Number two: Cloud computing. We’ve all been talking about that. That's the big development, the big paradigm shift. Clouds will be the new "normal." From the SOA perspective, we're going to be seeing a convergence. When we talk about cloud, we're going to talk about SOA, and the two are going to be mapped very closely together.

Dave Linthicum talks a lot about this in his new book and in his blog work. Services are services. They need to be transparent. They need to be reusable and sharable. They need to cross enterprise boundaries. We're going to see a convergence of SOA and cloud. It’s a service-oriented culture.

Number three: Google is becoming what I call the Microsoft of the clouds. Google offers a browser and email. It has a backend app engine. It offers storage. They're talking about bringing out an OS. Google is essentially providing an entire stack from which you can build your IT infrastructure. You can actually build a company’s IT infrastructure on the back of this. So, Google is definitely the Microsoft of the cloud for the current time.

Microsoft is also getting into the act as well with cloud computing, and they are doing a great job there. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens. By the way, Google also offers search as a capability.

Number four: We're going to see less of a distinction between service providers and service consumers over clouds, SOA, what have you. That's going to be blurring. Everybody will be providing and publishing services, and everybody will be consuming services.

You're going to see less of a distinction between providers and consumers. For example, I was talking to a reinsurance company a few months back. They offer a portal to their customers, the customers being insurance companies. They say that they offer a lot of analytics capabilities that their customers don’t have, and the customers are using their portal to do their own analytic work.

They don’t call it cloud. Cloud never entered the conversation, but this is a cloud. This is a company that’s offering cloud services to its consumers. We're going to see a lot of that, and it’s not necessarily going to be called cloud. You're not going to see companies saying, "We're offering clouds to our partners." It’s just going to be as the way it is.

Number five: In the enterprise application area, we've seen it already, but we're going to see more-and-more pushback against where money is being spent. As I said, the economy is growing, but there is going to be a lot of attention paid to where IT dollars are going.

I base this on a Harvard Medical School study that just came out last month. They studied 4,000 hospitals over a three-year period and found that, despite hundreds of millions of dollars being invested at IT, IT had no impact on hospital operations, patient care quality, or anything else.

Morgenthal: Number one: Cyber security. I am beginning to understand how little people actually understand about the differences between what security is and information assurance is, and how little people realize that their systems are compromised and how long it takes to eliminate threat within an organization.

Because of all of this connectedness, social networking, and cloud, a lot of stuff is going to start to bubble up. People who thought things were taken care of are going to learn that it wasn’t taken care of, and there will be a sense of urgency about responding to that. We're going to see that happen a lot in the first half of 2010.

Number two: Mobile. The mobile platforms are now the PC of yesterday, right? The real battle is for how we use these platforms effectively to integrate into people’s lives and allow them to leverage the platform for communications, for collaboration, and to stay in touch.

It seems everywhere I go, people are willing to spend a lot of money on their data plan. So, that’s a good sign for telecoms.

My personal belief is that it overkills information overlook, but that’s me. I know that everywhere I go, I see people using their iPhones and flicking through their apps. So, they hit upon a market segment, a very large market segment, that actually enjoys that. Whether small people like me end up in a cave somewhere, the majority of people are definitely going to be focused on the mobile platform. That also relates to the carriers. I think there still a carrier war here. We've yet to see AT&T and iPhone in the US break apart and open up its doors to other carriers.

Number three: Business intelligence and analytics, especially around complex event processing (CEP). CEP is still in an immature state. It does some really interesting things. It can aggregate and correlate. It really needs to go to that next step and help people understand how to build models for correlation. That’s going to be a difficult step.

As somebody was saying earlier, you had these little Poindexters sitting in the back room doing the stuff. There's a reason why the Poindexters were back there doing that. They understand math and the formulas that are under building these analytical models.

CEP and analytics—and the two tied together. You’ll see that the BI, and data aspects of the BI, side will integrate with the CEP modeling to not only report after the fact on a bunch of raw data, but almost be proactive, and try to, as I said in my blog entry, know when the spit hits the fan.

Number four is collaboration. We’ve crossed the threshold here. People want it. They're leveraging it.

The labor market has not caught up to take advantage of these tools, design them, architect the solutions properly, and deploy and manage them.

I've been seeing some uptake on Google Wave. I think people are still a little confused by the environment, and the interaction model is not quite there yet to really turn it on its ear, but it clearly is an indication that people like large-scale interactions with large groups of people and to be able to control that information and make it usable. Google is somewhat there, and we'll see some more interesting models emerge out of that as well.

Number four is labor. We're at a point where the market is based on all these other things based on the cloud. We had a lot of disruptive technologies hit in the past five years—enterprise mashups, SOA, and cloud computing. The labor market has not caught up to take advantage of these tools, design them, architect the solutions properly, and deploy and manage them.

I think that 2010 has to be a year for training, rebuilding, and getting some of those skills up. Today, you hear a lot of stories, but there is a large gap for any company to be able to jump into this. Skills are not there. The resources are not there and they are not trained. That's going to be a huge issue for us in 2010.

Bloomberg: I'm going to be a bit of the naysayer of the bunch. I just don't see cloud computing striking it big in 2010. When we talk to enterprise architects, we see a lot of curiosity and some dabbling. But, at the enterprise scale, we see too much resistance in terms of security and other issues to put a lot of investment into it. It's going to be gradually growing, but I don't see such a point coming as soon as you might like.

Small organizations are a different story. We see small organizations basing their whole business models on the cloud, but at the enterprise level, it's sort of a toe in the water, and we see that happening in the 2010.

Another thing we don't see really taking off in any big way is Enterprise 2.0. That is Web 2.0 collaborative technologies for the enterprise. You know, "Twitter On Steroids," and that kind of thing. Again, it's going to be more of a toe in the water thing. Collaborative technologies are maturing, but we don't see a huge paradigm shift in how collaboration is done in the enterprise. It's going to be more of a gradual process.

Another thing that we are not seeing happening in 2010 is CIOs and other executives really getting the connection between business process management (BPM) and SOA. We see those as two sides of the same coin. Architects are increasingly seeing that in order to do effective BPM you have to have the proper architecture in place. But, we don't see the executives getting that and putting money where it belongs in order to effect more flexible business process. So, this is another work in progress, and it's going to be a struggle for architects to make progress over the course of the year.

As far as the end of the recession, yeah, we're all hoping that the economy picks up, and I do see that there is going to be a lot of additional activity as a result of an improving economy, but I don't see a huge uptake in spending on software per se.

Spending in IT is going to go up, but in terms of what the executives going to invest in, they're going to be very careful about purchasing software. That's going to drive some money to cloud-based solutions, but that's still just a toe in the water as well.

Software vendors were hoping for a huge year, but they're going to be disappointed. It's going to be a growth year, but it's going to be moderate growth for the vendors.

Those are my first four. Those are the negatives. Not to be too negative, in terms of the positive, what we see happening in 2010 is increased focus on "MSW." You know what MSW is, right? Politely speaking it's "Make Stuff Work." Of course, you could put a different word in there for the S, but Make Stuff Work, that's what we see the architects really focusing on.

They have a good idea now of what SOA is all about. They have a good idea about how the technology fits in the story and the various technologies that have been mentioned on this call, whether it's analytics, data management, SaaS, and the cloud-based approaches. Now, it's time to get the stuff to work together, and that's the real challenge that we see.

The SOA story is no longer an isolated story. We're going to do SOA, let's go do SOA. But, it's SOA plus other things. So, we're going to do SOA, BPM, and the architecture driving that, despite the fact that the CIO may not quite connect the dots there.

SOA plus master data management (MDM)—it's not one or the other now. It's how we get those things to work together. SOA plus virtualization. That's another challenge. Previously, those conversations were separate parts of the organization. We see more and more conversations bringing those together.

SOA and SaaS—somebody already mentioned that SaaS is one segment of the cloud category. It's little more mature than the rest. We see more organizations understanding the connection between those two and trying to put them together. We'll do middleware and we'll do SOA, but we don't really see the connection where we confuse one for the other, and that was a big issue.

We're happy to call this services-oriented, even though the organization, as a whole, may call it variety of different things, depending on the perspective of the individual.

Baer: On cloud and virtualization, basically I agree with Jason, and I don't agree with David or with Joe. It’s not going to be the "new normal." We're going to see this year an uptake of all the management overhead of dealing with cloud and virtualization, the same way we saw with outsourcing years back, where we thought we'd just throw labor costs over the wall.

Secondly, JP, I very much believe that there is going to be convergence between BI and CEP this year. I agree with him that there's not going to be a surge of Albert Einsteins out there. On the other hand, I see this as a golden opportunity for vendors to package these analytics as applications or as services. That's where I really see the inflection curve happening.

Number three: Microsoft and Google. Microsoft will be struggling to stay relevant. Yes, people will buy Windows 7, because it's not Vista. That’s kind of a backhanded compliment to say, "We're buying this, because you didn't screw up as badly as last time." It doesn't speak well for the future.

Google meets a struggle for focus. I agree with Joe that they are aspiring to be the Microsoft of the cloud, but it may or may not be such a good thing for Google to follow that Microsoft model.

Finally, I agree with Jim that you are going to see a lot more business-oriented, whether it's BI, BPM, or IBM buying Lombardi. I hope they don't mess up Lombardi and especially I hope they don't mess up Blueprint. I've already blogged about that.

One other point—and I don't know if this fits into a top five or not—but I found what Joe was talking about very interesting in terms of the let-down on health-care investment in IT. There's going to be lot a of pushing in electronic medical records (EMR) this year. I very much believe in EMRs, but, on the other hand, they are no panacea. We're going to see a trough of disillusionment happen on that as well.

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: 12th February 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

This event podcast discussion comes to you from The Open Group’s Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference in Seattle, the week of Feb. 1, 2010.

We examine the definition of enterprise architecture (EA), the role of the architect and how that might be shifting with an expert from the Open Group, Len Fehskens, Vice President of Skills and Capabilities. The interview is moderated by Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: I was really intrigued by your presentation, talking, with a great deal of forethought obviously, about the whole notion of EA, the role of the architect, this notion of "fit for purpose." We want to have the fit-for-purpose discussion about EA. What are the essential characteristics of this new definition?

Fehskens: You'll remember that one of the things I hoped to do with this definition was understand the architecture of architecture, and that the definition would basically be the architecture of architecture. The meme, so to speak, for this definition is the idea that architecture is about three things: mission, solution, and environment. Both the mission and the solution exist in the environment, and the purpose of the architecture is to specify essentials that address fitness for purpose.

There are basically five words or phrases; mission, solution, environment, fitness for purpose, and essentials. Those capture all the ideas behind the definition of architecture.

Gardner: The whole notion of EA has been in works for 30 years, as you pointed out. What is it about right now in the maturity of IT and the importance of IT in modern business that makes this concept of enterprise architect so important?

Fehskens: A lot of practicing enterprise architects have realized that they can't do enterprise IT architecture in isolation anymore. The constant mantra is "business-IT alignment." In order to achieve business-IT alignment, architects need some way of understanding what the business is really about. So, coming from an architectural perspective, it becomes natural to think of specifying the business in architectural terms.

Enterprise architects are now talking more frequently about the idea of "business architecture." The question becomes, "What do we really mean by business architecture?" We keep saying that it's the stakeholders who really define what's going on. We need to talk to business people to understand what the business architecture is, but the business people don't want to talk tech-speak.

We need to be able to talk to them in their language, but addressing an architectural end. What I tried to do was come up with a definition of architecture and EA that wasn't in tech-speak. That would allow business people to relate to concepts that make sense in their domain. At the same time, it would provide the kind of information that architects are looking for in understanding what the architecture of the business is, so that they can develop an EA that supports the needs of the business.

Gardner: So, in addition to defining EA properly for this time and place, and with the hindsight of the legacy, development, and history of IT and now business, what is the special sauce for a person to be able to fill that role? It’s not just about the definition, but it's also about the pragmatic analog world, day-in and day-out skills and capabilities.

Borrowed skills
Fehskens: That's a really good question. I've had this conversation with a lot of architects, and we all pretty much agree that maybe 90 percent of what an architect does involves skills that are borrowed from other disciplines—program management, project management, governance, risk management, all the technology stuff, social skills, consulting skills, presentation skills, communication skills, and all of that stuff.

But, even if you’ve assembled all of those skills in a single individual, there is still something that an architect has to be able to do to take advantage of those capabilities and actually do architecture and deliver on the needs of their clients or their stakeholders.

I don't think we really understand yet exactly what that thing is. We’ve been okay so far, because people who entered the discipline have been largely self-selecting. I got into it because I wanted to solve problems bigger than I could solve myself by writing all code. I was interested in having a larger impact then I could just writing a single program or doing something that was something that I could do all by myself.

That way, we filter out people who try to become architects. Then, there's a second filter that applies: if you don't do it well, people don't let you do it. We're now at the point where people are saying, "That model for finding, selecting, and growing architects isn't going to work anymore, and we need to be more proactive in producing and grooming architects." So, what is it that distinguishes the people who have that skill from the people who don't?

If you go back to the definition of architecture that I articulated in this talk, one of the things that becomes clear is that an architect not only has to have good design skills. An architect also has to be almost Sherlock Holmes-like in his ability to infer from all kinds of subtle signals about what really matters, what's really important to the stakeholders, and how to balance all of these different things in a way that ends up focusing on an answer to this very squishily, ill-defined statement of the problem.

This person, this individual, needs to have that sense of the big picture—all of the moving parts—but also needs to be able to drill in both at the technical detail and the human detail.

In fact, this notion of fitness for purpose comes back in. As I said before, an architect has to be able to figure out what matters, not only in the development of an architectural solution to a problem, but in the process of discerning that architecture. There's an old saw about a sculptor. Somebody asked him, "How did you design this beautiful sculpture," and he says, "I didn't. I just released it from the stone."

What a good architect does is very similar to that. The answer is in there. All you have to is find it. In some respects, it's not so much a creative discipline, as much as it's an exploratory or searching kind of discipline. You have to know where to look. You have to know which questions to ask and how to interpret the answers to them.

Rarely done
Gardner: One of the things that came out early in your presentation was this notion that architecture is talked about and focused on, but very rarely actually done. If it's the case in the real world that there is less architecture being done than we would think is necessary, why do it at all?

Fehskens: There's a lot of stuff being done that is called architecture. A lot of that work, even if it's not purely architecture in the sense that I've defined architecture, is still a good enough approximation so that people are getting their problems solved.

What we're looking for now, as we aspire to professionalize the discipline, is to get to the point where we can do that more efficiently, more effectively, get there faster, and not waste time on stuff that doesn't really matter.

I'm reminded of the place medicine was 100 or 150 years ago. I hate to give leeches a bad name, because we’ve actually discovered that they're really useful in some medical situations. But, there was trepanning, where they cut holes in a person's skull to release vapors, and things like that. A lot of what we are doing in architecture is similar.

What we want to do is get better at that, so that we pick the right things to do in the right situations, and the odds of them actually working are much higher than better than chance.

We do stuff because it's the state of the art and other people have tried it. Sometimes, it works and sometimes, it doesn't. What we want to do is get better at that, so that we pick the right things to do in the right situations, and the odds of them actually working are much higher than better than chance.

Gardner: Okay, a last question. Is there anything about this economic environment and the interest in cloud computing and various sourcing options and alternatives that make the architecture role all the more important?

Fehskens: I hate to give you the typical architect signature which is, "Yes, but." Yes, but I don't think that's a causal a relationship. It's sort of a coincidence. In many respects, architecture is the last frontier. It's the thing that's ultimately going to determine whether or not an organization will survive in an extremely dynamic environment. New technologies like cloud are just the latest example of that environment changing radically.

It isn't so much that cloud computing makes good EA necessary, as much as cloud computing is just the latest example of changes in the external environment that require organizations to have enterprise architects to make sure that the organization is always fit for purpose in an extremely dynamically changing environment.

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

By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 12th February 2010 Copyright Quocirca © 2010

Terms like ‘unified communications’ (UC) look great on the marketing slides of product vendors, but what do they really mean to those who are, or ‘may be if it can be shown to be worthwhile’, prospective customers? Frankly, not a lot.

The soft and intangible vendor promises that accompany UC don’t always translate into the real benefits that most customers are actually looking for. After all, in many job roles ‘productivity’ is down to employee attitude and time management rather than the clever use of the latest communications tools. Such tools are not always what they seem once the shiny marketing veneer has been rubbed off. Whilst it is true that many communications technologies are converging through the sometimes grudging acceptance of common underlying standards, most vendors are still trying to add that extra bit of differentiation or ‘value add’ that makes their products unique, or, as some might term it, ‘proprietary’ and in some cases ‘incompatible’.

Is this a problem? Well, not for customers who believe a particular vendor’s products will fill all their current and near term needs, or that communications technology will not advance too quickly, or that they will not get overtaken by other changes to the business. That may be the case for a select few, but it’s pretty likely that whatever is implemented will have to fit in with other products, be upgraded or replaced from time to time; to do this there must be a fair amount of flexibility.

So, the first question that should be asked by potential customers of the amalgam of products that will be required to deliver unified communications is ‘what will it look like for us?’.

This is often a tricky question when tabled directly at a specific product vendor, as it is always difficult to demonstrate the fit of its products with others. For example some vendors focus on the desktop, others on IP phones and others in hosted services. It doesn’t matter whether these are all competitive or complementary, but a suitably equipped reseller or integration partner ought to be able to showcase multiple vendors’ products and offer an integrated UC solution.

This is all very well—if all that the customer needed to do was look at the technology—but to really understand the impact, they need to feel it and see it applied to the needs of their specific, and probably complex, environment.

This demands more from the channel partner than the ability to showcase, sell and support various vendors’ technology. They have to demonstrate the ability to integrate them, not only with a customer’s legacy communications tools, but also with that customer’s existing processes, people and working practices. In an ideal world part of the sales process would be to run a pilot where the customer makes a significant commitment with its own systems and people. But this is tough on resources and times are hard so more upfront justification is necessary.

Budding unified communications specialists could take a leaf out of the book of systems integrator and managed services company, Logicalis, which has taken a more direct approach. Logicalis has built a proof of concept staging environment that brings together technology from the major unified communications vendors and allows them to be connected in a variety of ways. The setup is distributed, making use of several locations and has the capacity for building a simplified model of a prospective client’s current communications and then demonstrate how different technologies could be applied to support UC. Diversity of product and technical knowledge helps, but by far the most important success factor will be how well Logicalis understands and models the communications processes of its customers—i.e. its “value add”.

Positive approaches have been adopted by others. Managed communications company Azzurri has recognised that customers look for PBXs and telephony from established telephony vendors and IT products from traditional IT vendors to get a best of breed fit, but Azzurri starts by asking ‘what type of users do you have?’ not ‘how many?’. Systems integrator 2e2 thinks beyond UC in isolation and looks at how communication enables and optimises business processes—2e2 would be disappointed if its customers saw UC as simply a phone system replacement.

Communication, ultimately, is between people, not devices. Joining up the gaps between media and modes of communication in the way that unified communications proponents promote is therefore only worthwhile if it makes a positive change to employee behaviour, streamlining processes, boosting productivity and reducing costs. But without a demonstration of specific impact, these are vague marketing statements.

Any company looking to invest in unified communications should seek out those channel partners—value added resellers, integrators or service providers—who can help with the details of integration—not between technologies, but between people.