By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 14th November 2011 Copyright Quocirca © 2011

Two recent events with rather different audiences reveal that not everyone is convinced that the benefits of technology adoption will be evenly shared. In particular, what was highlighted were some disconnects between organisational gain and personal risk.

At a gathering of senior IT executives at a CBR dining club dinner sponsored by Riverbed and Dimension Data, a number of CIOs voiced their thoughts regarding the IT industry’s current apparently all-enveloping rising star—‘cloud’. While there was widespread appreciation of the possibilities and potential for the deployment of IT resources into the cloud, there were some significant reservations about the reality.

Vendors and service providers have been keen to promote the benefits of cloud, but they need to appreciate how implementation will affect their customers, in particular one part of the decision making process; the CIO, IT director or individual IT manager most directly responsible. This is the person that gets it in the neck when something goes wrong—irrespective of who in the external cloud ecosystem is really to blame.

The selling job elsewhere in the organisation is slightly less daunting. Those involved directly on the financial side recognise the cost savings of pushing (human and/or IT asset) resource demands into a virtual infrastructure provider, especially if they can cut precious capital expenditure at a time when borrowing is difficult. Many users recognise the flexibility of ‘on demand’ access to IT, storage and services, especially while on the move. Mobile and remote access, fuelled by consumer behaviours and social media, have become a regular expectation and a perceived necessity.

However, IT managers, whose jobs depend on the reliability, fidelity and robustness of the services being delivered, see risk. And who can blame them when recent downtime and outages from what seemed unshakeable cloud service providers—Google, RIM, Amazon, Microsoft—demonstrate that even large and well planned IT systems can fail?

Quocirca regularly advocates the use of a total value proposition to understand the wider benefits and drawbacks of technology adoption. This goes beyond a simple ROI or TCO financial proposition, to encompass the less tangible positive and negative impact on the organisation, its competitive positioning and, crucially, on the individual or individuals making a technology implementation decision. In this context the total value proposition also considers an element often missed out by those looking at technology change in an organisation—a “total liability proposition”, perhaps—to understand the potential negative consequences, as these weigh most heavily on those making the decision, as it is their neck on the line.

The second event indicated where a respectful approach to risk might emanate where other critical players in the value chain discussed where they might contribute and benefit from cloud adoption. This was a gathering of diverse telecoms companies and service providers at the NetEvents, Italy conference. Here the interest in cloud as potential new sources of revenue and enterprise influence was strong, but it was dosed with a heavy realisation that significant credibility would be at stake if something went wrong.

Telecoms providers, unlike some of the IT industry, have a healthy respect for Murphy’s Law (if something can go wrong, it will), in addition to the more famous ones that are attributed to the value and growth of Moore’s Law of transistor numbers doubling every eighteen months and Metcalfe’s Law of the increasing value of connectedness. They know that their survival is dependent on fundamental attributes that some vendors in the IT industry like to portray as differentiated marketing benefits, like security, availability, interoperability and predictability.

The telecoms industry’s measured approach and involvement in the blossoming cloud market is to be welcomed, and should, over time, start to allay the understandable fears of those within enterprise who are responsible for delivering IT services. As well as trusting them to provide resilient networks, CIOs and IT directors might look to their telecoms providers to supply computer power. Then maybe Sun Microsystems (and Oracle, through its acquisition) was right after all, the network really is the computer?

By: Andy Jones, Director and General Manager, Europe, Xerox Global Document Outsourcing Posted: 31st October 2011 Copyright Xerox Global Document Outsourcing © 2011

The term “sustainability” used to be a buzzword heard in company meetings. Today it’s an essential concern in the boardroom.

In a global survey  of 766 CEOs conducted last year, 93 percent said sustainability is critical to the future success of their companies. Their responses support what we’ve heard from Xerox customers for years: sustainability is no longer just “nice to have” but a fundamental part of business.

Long before going green was popular and sustainability entered our daily vocabulary, Xerox put sustainability practices into place across the company. We know (based on decades of experience) the challenge organisations face in bringing their sustainability vision to life, especially when it comes to daily practices in the office.

Taking the first step
One of the first places to start is taking stock of how office equipment currently is used. The printer you can’t live without at work may be your biggest green offender. Older printers often take up a lot of energy and a single-function device is rarely as efficient as one that also copies and scans.

Small changes to everyday habits can reduce an office’s carbon footprint, like these fast, inexpensive ways to reduce the amount of power used:

1. Unplug devices that aren’t frequently used: Devices consume phantom power even while in standby mode. If there are scanners, printers, or guest computers that aren’t needed every day, unplug them in between use.
2. Purchase ENERGY STAR-qualified equipment: When purchasing new office equipment, consider the cost and features and how it will impact your energy use. Arm yourself with a list of products that are ENERGY STAR qualified to make a smart purchasing decision.
3. Make use of energy-saving settings: Enable the built-in energy-saving settings found on current technology products. These are like the low-power mode on your printer and the hibernation mode on your computer.

Document and printer Management
Over the years Xerox has seen a number of common practices that hinder efforts to reduce an organisation’s carbon footprint. One of the most common is the tendency to support far more devices than necessary, including old, energy-inefficient machines.

Other challenges to sustainability include:

• Lack of departmental control over how / what people print.
• Devices not placed in an optimal position, so they are either under- or over-utilised by staff. Energy can be spent unnecessarily if staff don't make the most of available devices.
• Ordering and storing more consumables than needed. This takes up valuable office space.
• Unconnected network-enabled devices aren’t remotely monitored or proactively fixed, leading to an excess of printer-related calls to the IT helpdesk and more engineer site visits.

Organisation-wide print policies to restrict print volumes can help with many of these challenges. The policy could include:

• Mandatory double-sided printing.
• Limiting job sizes.
• Developing rules to ensure certain document sizes and types are printed only on certain devices.

As simple as these steps are, we’ve found many businesses don’t implement these well.

And there are other areas for improvement. Innovations in printer hardware and software, such as new energy-saving printers which include sleep, can help significantly. And some devices feature green-friendly parts made from recyclable plastics. There's also new imaging technology like Xerox’s proprietary solid ink  which has substantial sustainability benefits. A solid ink printer or multifunction printer uses solid sticks (or blocks) of no-mess, non-toxic ink instead of toner or inkjet cartridges. It is easy to use, produces great colour print quality, is cost-effective, and very good for the environment.

These innovations, combined with an organisation’s proactive approach to managing its own unique printing environment in a more sustainable way can go a long way toward ‘greening’ a business.

Seeking assistance
Many organisations outsource print management to address these issues. Our customers have realised cost savings of up to 30 percent whilst also reducing energy usage, solid waste and carbon footprint by at least 20 percent (and in many cases significantly more) across the lifecycle of devices.

We do this by introducing a managed print service (MPS), which gives an organisation visibility into its document output costs. This environment is then managed on an ongoing basis whilst delivering against mutually agreed KPIs and SLAs. At Xerox, we’ve seen this approach deliver impressive results for a number of different clients – from the Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council to defence provider Selex Galileo.

Like the CEOs questioned in the survey, these organisations see sustainability as critical to future success and have sought help in changing what was once just a vision into reality.

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

The popularity of mobile devices like smartphones and tablets has energized users on the one hand, but on the other hand it’s caused IT and business leaders to scramble to adjust to new models of applications delivery.

That's why enterprise app stores are quickly creating productivity and speed-to-value benefits for PC users and IT departments alike as they grapple with the new models around consumerization of IT. The author of a recent Ovum white paper on app stores says they are increasingly important for enterprises as they consider ways to better track, manage, and distribute all of their applications.

Join this podcast discussion then as we examine the steps businesses can now take to build and develop their own enterprise app stores. We'll further see what rapid and easy access to self-service apps on PCs and notebook computers through such app stores is doing for businesses.

And we’ll learn how app stores are part of the equation for improved work and process success on and off the job. Furthermore, we uncover how Embarcadero’s AppWave solution brings the mobile apps experience to millions of PC users in their workplace in the enterprise.

The panel consists of Tony Baer, Principal Analyst at Ovum; Michael Swindell, Senior Vice President of Products and Marketing at Embarcadero Technologies, and Richard Copland, Principal Innovation Consultant at Logica. The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: Embarcadero is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: Richard, in your looking over the landscape for IT innovations, is there something about the app store model that you think will encourage users to adopt new technologies and new applications faster?

Copland: Undoubtedly. The whole socialization and the social trend which I see as probably the biggest driver behind this is for the way in which people use software and the way in which people comment on a software.

The organization will cluster around the toolkits for which the feedback from the users is positive. I can think of one large global financial organization here that has 5,000 apps within their world. They would look to simplify their landscape by over 60 percent, because they recognize that they've got so many kinds of individual pockets of activity going on in the organization.

And you need to support those individual pockets of activity that, in terms of your users in the tail effect, they’ll be the mainstream enterprise apps, such as Windows-based or Office-based, which the majority will use. But if you could tap into an environment, in which you are giving the people what they want, then the return on investment (ROI) from that is going to be a lot faster.

My role as a Principal Innovation Consultant is effectively twofold. It's to find new things and introduce new things to our clients. Something innovative to me is something that's new to you and provides a benefit. This can be cash, people, or green ideas. I spend my day looking at cool new stuff, which means ways of working, technologies, partners, and even wacky research coming out of the various universities here in Europe.

At Logica, we're a business and technology service company. We provide business consulting, system integration, and outsourcing to our clients around the world including many of Europe’s largest businesses.

For me, these app stores are also the whole Generation Next piece which is about a whole new generation that is educated and tech-savvy. They're multitasking all the time. They work as consumers. They're purchasing products and customize them to their needs in terms of their lifestyles. So they’re regularly sharing insight and comment on things which are good for them.

That’s playing out in terms of lifestyle and that's being brought into the business scenario, whereby the formal and informal hierarchies of organizations are blurring.

Gardner: Tony, this sounds like it’s something quite new.

Baer: From the end-user standpoint, there certainly is quite a new win to this. But we also have to look at the fact that this is going to change the way IT serves the organization. At least this aspect of it is really going to become more of a service provider. And there are a lot of implications for that.

For one thing, IT has to be more responsive but they also have to work on more of a shorter fuse, almost like a just-in-time type of model.

... I was a little bit surprised because there is certainly a concept leap from a $1.99 little applet that you pull down from the iPhone app store or from the Android marketplace to a full-blown enterprise desktop application.

That being said, it’s not surprising, given that there’s been a huge demand from the bottom-up, from the people in the workplace. So it’s a phenomenon that’s probably better known as the consumerization of IT — "I have these sophisticated mobile devices and tablets. Why can’t I get that easy to use experience on my regular machine for my day job?"

Therefore, the demand for the comfort and convenience of that was inevitably bound to spread into the enterprise environment. You've seen that manifested in a number of ways. For example, companies have basically embraced more social collaboration. And you’re also starting to see some use of many of these new form factors.

So again, what Embarcadero has been starting to introduce is symbolic in a way that’s really not surprising.

But there's no free lunch in all this, it still requires management. For example, we still need to worry about dealing with security governance, managing consumption, and also making sure that you lock down, or secure, the licensing issues. As I said, there’s no free lunch, but compare that to the overhead of the traditional application distribution and deployment process.

So again, from the end user standpoint, it should be a win-win, but from the IT standpoint, it's going to mean a number of changes. Also, this is breaking new ground with a number of the vendors. What they need to do is check on things such as licensing issues, because what you're really talking about is a more flexible deployment policy.

Gardner: Michael Swindell, tell me a little bit about AppWave and what it takes for an IT organization to make the transition from that long process that Tony outlined to a more streamlined app-store approach.

Swindell: The best way to describe AppWave is that it’s just a pretty simple three-step process. The first step is taking traditional software, which is traditionally complex for end users and for organizations to manage. This includes things like installations, un-installations, considerations about applications, of how they affect the users’ environment.

Then, converting those traditional software applications into the concept of apps where they are self-contained, don’t require installation, can be streamed and run to a user anywhere they are, and really delivering the mobile-like experience of mobile software to the more complex traditional desktop PC software.

AppWave has tooling that allows users to take their applications and convert them into apps. And that’s any type of application—commercial application or internally developed.

That's the first step. The second is to centralize those apps in an app store, where users can get to them, and where organizations can have visibility into their usage, manage access to them, etc. So the second step is simply centralizing those apps.

The third is the user experience. One of the key drivers behind the success of apps in the mobile space has been the visibility that users have into application availability. It’s very easy for users to search and find an app as they need it.

Think about how a user uses a mobile phone to come up with an app. Maybe they’re walking down the street, they see a business, and they have an idea, or they want directions to something. They can simply search in an app store on their mobile device and immediately get an app to solve that problem.

If you look in the business space and inside the workplace, when a user has a problem, they don’t really have a mechanism to sit down and search to solve a problem and then get an application to solve it immediately.

As we talked about earlier, and Tony really well described that the process, once they identify an application to solve a problem, that can take weeks or months to roll out. so you don’t have that instant feedback.

The user experience has to be instantaneous. An area that we focused on very heavily with AppWave is to provide the users an ability to search, find apps based on the problems that they’re trying to solve, and instantly run those apps, rather than having to go through a long process.

Gardner: Can we perhaps make the association that app stores can fundamentally change the way workers behave in an innovation sense?

Copland: Absolutely. You’re on the money. We talked a little bit about looking at the mobile aspects of it and moving to this on-demand usage and the challenges for the organization to do that.

Certainly, the components within the AppWave solution give you the opportunity to move to more of what I would describe as smart working or remote working, by which the user doesn't necessarily have to come into the office to access the tools, which are traditionally being provided to them at their desk in their environment.

If you start remote working or are given a broader range of remote access, then you can be operating a much stronger work-life balance. So if you're in a situation where you’ve got a young family and you need to take the kids to school, you can come on and go off the company network and use the tools which are provided to you in a much more user-friendly flexible environment. That would be certainly from the user's perspective.

From the business’s perspective, I start moving to a scenario where I don't necessarily need to maintain a real estate where if I’ve got 5,000 users, I need to have 5,000 desks. That certainly becomes quite empowering across the rest of the organization, and other stakeholders—the facility’s officers, business managers—start taking real notice of those types of savings and the nature of how work is achieved.

Gardner: How far can the app store model be taken in terms of legacy, the installed base of apps?

Swindell: Our vision is any type of application in the organization will eventually be supported by AppWave. The initial support is for PC apps in organizations, which is the vast majority of productivity applications that end users need. It also is where the largest problem set is, both from an end-user perspective and from an organization's perspective.

So we're tackling the hardest problem first and then our plan is to roll in other type of apps, web apps, and applications that you might be using in an organization, using other types of delivery technologies.

But the idea is to take any type of these applications and present them as an app inside the AppWave ecosystem. So a user can have a centralized way to search for any type of app whether it’s a corporate HR, a web application, a hosted software as a service (SaaS) application, or a PC application. Certainly, mobile would be an obvious direction as well.

There are really two sides to the benefit of using the app store methodology. There's an organizational side of understanding application usage, as you said maybe sunsetting applications, understanding how applications are used within their organization, so that they can make good decisions.

Then we have the user side, where users have a lot more information that they can provide that’s very useful for both the organization and other users.

The app store metaphor works very well in sharing that type of information. It gives the organization usage information and statistics, and the demand information that's valuable for the organization to plan and understand their application usage. It also provides information to other users on the applicability of applications for certain scenarios, whether applications are good or bad for a particular scenario.

This has worked well in the mobile space with public app stores, and we see that there's a lot of applicability inside the firewall, inside organizations, to be able to use this information and create more value out of their applications and to help users get more value and understanding about their applications.

One of the things that AppWave and the app store concept can do is to help create a centralized app view of the different types of applications and even the different types of services in your organization, and to be able to understand what’s available.

There are also opportunities for the same types of socialization and sharing of information and knowledge about services using the app store concept, as there is with apps.

The important thing is to take these different types of applications and present them in a common way in the same place, so that it really doesn’t matter whether the app is a web app or it’s a PC app. Users can find them, run them, and share information about them at the same place.

Gardner: Tony, back to your Ovum white paper, what do you see as the efficiency aspects to this?

Baer: Compare this model to the traditional application deployment model ... Number one, it's a much more of a long-fused process. There is elaborate planning of the rollout. You're trying to figure out all the different client targets that you're trying to address. Even if you do have locked-down machines, you're still going to have issues. Then, package the release. Then, regression test it to death. Then distribution, and you actually get the thing installed. Hopefully, it's up during some off hour, let's say, at 3 a.m. Then, you prepare for all the support calls.

That's a pretty involved process. That consumes a lot of time both for the end user, who is waiting for the functionality that he or she may want—or not. And it's also, of course, a considerable overhead in the IT organization.

If you take that all away into a more modular model, more like a radio broadcast model, essentially it becomes a lot more efficient. You lose all this lead time, and as Michael was talking about, you then get all the visibility for all these apps being consumed. End users have more sway. As long as they are authorized to use these apps, they have this choice.

So it's not that all of a sudden they have a whole number of apps that are loaded on their machine, whether they like it or not. We haven't done anything to quantify this, because trying to quantify productivity is like asking “what's the cost of downtime?” And in a lot of sectors that can be a very subjective number. But intuitively, this model, if it scales out, should basically provide a much lower cost of ownership and much greater satisfaction.

Gardner: Richard Copland, as someone who is out there hunting down innovations that they can bring to their user organization and their clients, was there anything about AppWave or app stores in general for enterprise use that was interesting and attractive to you that we perhaps haven’t hit on yet?

Copland: In AppWave and the Embarcadero team, we have a global innovation venture partner program. They were our recent winner. They went up against competition from around the world. We believe that the app store concept has got so much within it in terms of the user experience, the socialization aspects, and the collaboration aspects of it.

The area which we haven't touched on so much is that it's a bridging point between your legacy systems and your more visionary cloud-type solutions where you really are SaaS, on-demand and pay-per-click.

The thing that will kill innovation is just operating slowly. One of the biggest blockers that organizations face with regard to innovation is the nature of how that sets out and the speed at which they react to what are their internal ideas.

Swindell: You can look at this as being in a way a cultural preparation for transition to the cloud, if indeed the cloud is suitable for specific parts of your application portfolio.

... Having an on-premise private app store that runs within your organization that is on site really addresses a lot of those concerns and uses the cloud simply to deliver new applications and apps from ISVs and from other vendors.

Once they are inside your organization, they're operating within your security and governance environment. So you don't really have to worry about those concerns, but it still delivers a lot of the benefits of the user experience of cloud and the on-demand nature.

Gardner: I know this is going a little bit out further into the future and perhaps into the hypothetical. It sounds as if you can effectively use this app store model and technology and approach like AppWave to be a gateway for your internal PC apps, but that same gateway might then be applicable for all these other services.

Swindell: The foundation is there, and I think it will be demand driven by users. Every time we talk to a customer with AppWave, the list of possibilities and where customers want to use and take the environment is exciting, and the list continues to grow on how they can use it in the long-term.

So we're building facilities today to connect the private AppWaves into our cloud infrastructure, so that we can deliver certainly apps but there could be other types of services that connect into that as well.

Gardner: Okay, and just to be clear. AppWave is available now. I believe we have a 30-day free trial, is that correct?

Swindell: Yes, there is a free trial, and we also offer free version of AppWave that organizations can download and use today with free apps. There's an entire catalog of free apps that are included and are streamed down from our cloud.

So you can get set up and started with AppWave, using free apps in your organization. What can be added then is your own internal custom apps or commercial licenses that organizations have. So if you've hundreds of commercial licenses, you can add those in or add your own internally developed apps. You can go to www.embarcadero.com/appwave and try it for free.

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

By: Gerry Brown, Analyst - Digital Marketing & CRM, Bloor Research Posted: 4th October 2011 Copyright Bloor Research © 2011

The nascent digital marketing industry is currently growing very rapidly (c. at 20% to 30%) and is attracting a plethora of competitors. But what can it learn from the similar CRM growth market of the late 1990s? And how can it avoid the mistakes and the damaged reputation that the CRM market has suffered from?

The CRM market grew fast on the strategic premise that 'by managing your customer relationships, customer churn falls, retention rises, and sustainable cashflow and share price gains follow'. However, building trust, loyalty, and lifetime value takes many years. Venture capital-backed vendors and customers needing to show a fast ROI took a more short-term view.

So CRM became mainly used for capturing, measuring and controlling sales activities - the feared 'stick' with which to punish salespeople. End users that followed the original 'customer relationship' dream found vendor promises inflated beyond product capabilities, and millions of customer IT dollars were wasted. Gartner reported CRM implementation failure rates of 80%+. The king of the market (Siebel) was toppled, replaced with a lower-cost and more flexible Cloud-based alternative (Salesforce.com).

In digital marketing, the original strategic promise was to 'engage with customers, have relevant conversations, and build products to meet their needs'. In this scenario, marketers listen, analyse, and predict customer buying behaviour and optimise their offerings to meet customer needs.

As with CRM, in digital marketing short term is trumping longer term brand building considerations. Customers use digital marketing primarily to run price discount email campaigns, and analyse and target web site visitors. The results can be surprisingly crude. For example, Groupon does not even differentiate its email promotional offers between men and women. Hence men are regularly invited to women's spas for pampering weekends. Irritating.

At last week's ad:tech show in London, the focus was how to increase sales 'conversions'. Cost Per Acquisition (CPA) is the key metric describing the cost to 'buy' a new customer. We customers need to be 'monetized'. One vendor boasts of "quickly transforming conversations into conversions" another is an expert in "the art of building and monetizing a social following". They offer quick profits rather than 'satisfying customer needs' - which is what marketing is supposed to be about.

'Multi-channel marketing' is another key message which means sending the same adverts to your email tray, your mobile phone, and where you browse on the Internet. Then there is 're-marketing' as championed by Criteo, which means that a web site visitor can never escape from adverts following them around. For example, whenever I surf the Internet a box pops up advertising John Lewis' pillows, as I viewed them on the John Lewis web site but didn't buy. Irritating.

The advertising industry has always championed creativity and brand distinctiveness. Digital marketing today is focused on where to push the next potential customer 'over the cliff' into becoming a user. Hence online betting companies such as Littlewoods and Betfair give you money to start gambling with them. Others are following.

Digital Marketing is in danger of becoming a 'snake oil' - a cure to all marketing ills. In truth, all companies need some digital marketing. But what you buy has many dependencies - your IT infrastructure, your online presence, your industry, the size of your company, your culture, your business model, your customer attributes, your stakeholders, your product portfolio etc.

Do not be fooled by the rhetoric, there is no such thing as a generic digital marketing strategy. One size does not fit all. Hence an informed consulting approach is required, rather than random purchases of free or low cost digital marketing products that may not scale nor integrate.

An industry champion like Siebel has yet to emerge, however few would bet against Google and even Facebook having a big say in how the digital marketing industry develops. They own the customer data after all. For sure, the traditional enterprise vendors IBM (Unica), Adobe (Omniture), and Webtrends need to dramatically increase their speed-to-market, thought-leadership and innovation if they are going to continue to set the agenda and drive the market.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 30th September 2011 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2011

Social media and the increased role that linked communities of users have on issues, discourse, and public opinion are changing the world in many ways -- from how societies react such as in the Middle East turmoil to how users flock to or avoid certain products and services.

The fact is that many people are now connected in new ways and they’re voicing opinions and influencing their peers perhaps more than ever before. Businesses cannot afford to simply ignore these global -- and what now appeared to be long-term -- social media trends.

The latest BriefingsDirect discussion then focuses on the impact that social media is having on enterprises. We specifically examine with an executive at Capgemini on what steps businesses can take to manage social media as a market opportunity, rather than react to it as a hard-to-fathom threat. Hear too how services are being developed to help businesses to better understand and exploit the potential of social media.

The discussion with Paul Cole, Vice President of Customer Operations Management and Business Process Outsourcing at Capgemini, is the first in the series of podcasts with Capgemini on social media issues and business process outsourcing. The interview is conducted by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: Capgemini is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: It seems a bit of a twisted logic when we say that social media can be both a threat and an opportunity. How could social media be both?

Cole: It's all in how you decide to respond. Social media, in and of itself, is a neutral topic. It could be viewed as a utensil or a platform, upon which you can do things. And depending on your intent, whether you’re an enterprise or a customer, those activities could be viewed favorably or negatively. And that's true as much in the sociopolitical world as in business.

The important thing is that social media is the platform, not the action itself, and it’s really what you decide to do over that platform that makes the difference in business and in the world at large.

Gardner: Do you have any evidence, research, or findings of any sort that bolster this notion that social media is a sea change and not just a blip?

Game changer

Cole: Well, based on a survey we commissioned last winter, somewhat surprisingly, a bit more than one in 10 executives did characterize it as a fad relative to the business world.

However, you can look at it in the everyday world around us and the media as it relates to impact on society and in the sociopolitical spectrum, and there's very little doubt that it’s changing the game there. I believe it will have an equally profound impact on business over time.

Social media has become the bullhorn of the 21st century. It allows people to spread their message, to amplify that message, to mobilize the community, and also to monitor in real time the events as they unfold.

We are having to deal with it across the political, social, and cultural spectrums. Witness, unfortunately, the emergence of something that we’re now calling flash mobs, a case where the platform is being misapplied toward organizing a community of people who have damaging intentions.

So back to your question on threat or opportunity, significant or insignificant impact, it’s all based on the intent and actions of the individuals utilizing the utensil.

Gardner: On one hand, we seem to see a lack of control or at least different aspects to how people behave. We don’t have the necessary tools. But on the other hand, we're seeing a lot more information generated, and information often is the lifeblood of how organizations react and adjust to markets.

Cole: Information overload is one potential consequence of this. It’s all a matter of how you take that information and translate it into actionable insights, against which you can make some smarter business decisions, and from our perspective, ultimately deliver a better customer experience which will help you grow.

What’s neat about what’s happening in the world of technology, on top of the social environment, is that there is a whole new generation of tools emerging that allow you to develop that insight.

There are four steps that a company can go through to generate social intelligence. First, is listening to what is going on out there. There has not been an earpiece for us to really take the pulse of the market, and what's happening in the virtual world or the internet world until the recent development of some of these social listening tools. So the ability just to know what's going on, who is saying what, who are the influencers, what are their sentiments is an important first step.

Monitoring change

The second step is the ability to monitor that over time and see how attitudes, perceptions, and most importantly, behaviors are changing and what are the impact and implication of that for your business, either from a marketing or a selling or customer service standpoint. In addition to monitoring that, you’re also now able, with text analytics tools to not simply track and describe what happening, but also isolate cause and effect.

So if I'm launching a Twitter campaign, putting a new product out there, running a contest, or engaging in some kind of social care activity, what is the impact it's having in terms of the customer’s behavior and what adjustments can I make to be more successful?

It's being able to get attribution and get to a root cause by applying these analytic tools. So you've listened, monitored, and analyzed. The killer app, if you will, is the last step of closing loop in terms of your ability to respond. So many companies today are putting their toe in the water in the social world by listening with these tools and trying to understand what's being said. It's new enough where not that many have actually industrialized their process for responding.

Ultimately, your ability to now go back into that community and influence the customer or attempt to influence the customer and their behavior is where there is a tremendous upside for companies in terms of generating higher growth and profit.

Gardner: How is Capgemini working toward some solutions on this?

Cole: As a global provider of consulting technology and outsourcing services, Capgemini attempts to keep its finger on the pulse of market. You have to be blind and deaf to not recognize that social media has quickly emerged on the scene. The question then becomes, as a provider of services, how to translate that into sets of offerings that add value for our clients.

At one level, you could look at social media as a wave or a phenomenon. I’ve been in the professional services, technology services business for 30 years, and we’ve seen the waves come and go, whether that would be CRM or ERP through SAP or eCommerce, which I think this mirrors quite a bit, and Y2K. So there's always an emerging area that people will try to understand, chase, and then capitalize on.

My particular area of expertise is around customer management. So I look through the lens of how a company acquires, develops, and retains its customers and how can we manage some of that process for them in a faster, better, or cheaper manner. We do that today in traditional forms with managing their call centers or their customer service operations, helping them present stronger web content, providing them with insights through analytical services, and so forth.

What social media started to suggest to us was that there was a new opportunity to bring another service to the market that allowed clients to focus on the business problem that they’re trying to solve and provided us the opportunity to provide them with everything they needed to mobilize around that objective in the social world.

Marketing enhancement

In and of itself, social media is not going to drive your business forward. As we've discussed, it's really a platform or a utility upon which you can engage customers for one or more activities based on a business objective. It does, at the end of the day, relate back to what you're trying to accomplish.

When I went to school, we were trained on the four Ps in marketing. You develop a product that the marketplace is interested in. You price that product at a level that the consumer or customer perceives value so they want to transact with you. You need to promote that in terms of distinguishing you against your competitors and bring that product to market with some form of distribution. We call that the four Ps.

Obviously you still need to do all those things, but in the social world now, there is a new twist. If you think about the product, we used to take a very linear approach to doing market research, testing concepts, via surveys and focus groups. In today’s social world, you can do that much more dynamically. There's a whole phenomenon around crowd sourcing with which you can solicit people's input and feedback and iterate on that massively, and closer to real time.

Your ability to get really close to the marketplace is enhanced tremendously by social media. In terms of promoting, it used to be broadcast media, but now you're able to do micro campaigns. You can do tweet campaigns. You can do campaigns through Facebook. Your ability to target the individual that you are trying to influence has gone up exponentially.

We've always talked about the segment of one, but it was very difficult to do. Now, you can get in there and really understand who is driving popular opinion, who are the big influencers, who do you need to convert to be an enthusiast or an advocate of your product, and launch very specific campaigns against them. It's a different form of promotion.

It's the same thing with pricing and distribution. While you still need to do many of the same activities, the way in which you will execute on those activities has evolved and become much more dynamic.

Every function within the organization has a potential application in the social world. I don't think it's the kind of thing that any one executive or any one function is going to own per se.

It's a matter of looking at it through the lens of the process that you're responsible for, and trying to understand how to apply new thinking and activities to improve your efficiency or your effectiveness of that area. That could be public relations and the brand, marketing and developing effective positioning, product development and management, selling through more targeted campaigns or, at the end of the value chain, a better servicing of the customer to generate greater loyalty.

Different ways

Gardner: Are we going to repeat history and have a fragmented approach to this or is there a better way?

Cole: You’ve really put your finger on a core issue. It all depends. What is social media? That depends on who you are and what you're trying to accomplish. That’s going to be variable based on your area of responsibility within the enterprise.

There is something to be said for standardization and taking a platform-based approach to avoid the recurring tendency of investing in your own individual solutions and then lacking interoperability or having to face integration issues and so forth.

While the application of what you do on top of the social platforms may vary, there is potential for the organization to operate as an enterprise on top of a single instance of a platform. That’s part of why we got into offering a managed service.

We allow the client to focus on what they are trying to do in the marketing, selling or customer service world. We provide them with the infrastructure, the technology, the process discipline, the data, and importantly, the social media advocates, the human intelligence layer that is ultimately conducting the monitoring and the analytics and the interpretation of what’s happening there.

By buying into a managed service the company can avoid having to make capital investments in the technology, avoid the potential risk of different groups going off and doing their own thing. They can remain current, because they don’t have to pay attention to this fast paced dynamic technology market and what is the state of the art. That would be our responsibility.

Hopefully, it's the best of both worlds. They can each, as user communities, decide what they want to get out of social media, but be able to leverage the fact that they're all investing in a common platform. ... It is a different way of storing, distributing, and accessing the data.

What it translates into for us is the ability to provide process as a service. That’s a fundamental shift in the marketplace that’s occurring as a result of the development of cloud capabilities.

Organizations can just tap into a service, and that makes it easier for them to get into a new area. It’s faster, it’s less expensive. We're trying to apply that same concept to social media. We can provide a faster, better, and/or cheaper approach. The client buys the process as a service on a subscription model.

We assure the integrity and security of the data. We provide the data management, the repository, the infrastructure, and the toolset. You're buying a service around a process, whether that be listening to your customers, wanting to launch marketing campaigns, providing social care or whatever.

The whole SaaS cloud phenomenon is just changing the distribution model and also facilitating an easier approach for companies to get up and running in this area.

Gardner: How are organizations getting started?

Cole: As evidence of the fact that it is a new phenomenon, you can just notice the volume of conferences that are out there with social media in the title. It just reinforces that companies are trying to understand still what "good" looks like. They’re out there looking for best practices. They are still paying for "PowerPoint," for consultants to come in and help them understand the strategy, the power of social, what that translates into in terms of metrics and governance, and so forth.

The market is very much in its exploratory stage. I'm not sure you can over-architect what social media means to you at the moment. This is something that you have to get in and dip your toe in the water. Instead of "ready, aim, fire," it's probably "fire, fire, aim, ready, fire." This means that you need to iterate.

You don’t know what you don’t know….. until you get in to the market and you start to listen to what is happening out there, identify who the key influencers are, where they're talking about, who are the advocates for the brand, and who are the potential saboteurs who can represent a threat? What are some of the kinds of programs and activities that one can run?

Rather than the grand strategies, the big-bang approach, this particular area is deserving of more experimentation, and iteration. Then, over time, we need the development of a broader strategy. But, you need to get in there, and listen, and learn, and act, and from that you'll figure out what works and what doesn’t work.

Part of what we’re trying to offer our clients is the ability to do that faster than doing it themselves, where they have to go out, acquire the tools, hire the people, and put in place the processes.

In this case, they can say we want to launch a campaign and we’d like to understand how we can use the social world to solve customer service problems or whatever. We provide all the tools and capabilities to do that. They focus on learning and evolving their strategy of what to do in the social world.

... As part of that, in our Social Media Management Solution, we’ve built a joint solution with a company called Attensity, which really comes at the market initially from the text analytics world, but offers a nice suite of applications that enable your ability to listen, monitor, analyze what's being done, and then respond to the customer in terms of workflow and direct customer engagement. So it's what you decide to do, but it's also having the right toolset with which to do it.

Gardner: Are there any places to which we could direct our listeners and readers for additional information, perhaps whitepapers, other research, and/or more information on your services?

Cole: Certainly capgemini.com. We do have a featured social media section on the website. We've recently published a whitepaper called "Harvesting the Fruit from the Social Media Grapevine". We hope that clients will find that insightful. It's a bit of a point-of-view on where the market is today and where it's headed.

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

You may also be interested in:

Proliferated, Outmoded Applications and Data Explosion Hamper Enterprises in Innovation, Any Quick Move to Cloud Computing Capgeminim CSC Line Up for AppLabs Enterprise IT Plus Social Media Plus Cloud Computing Equals The Future What Can Businesses Learn About Predictive Behavior from American Idol? I Collaborate, Therefore I Think, Therefore I Am ... An Enterprise

By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 21st September 2011 Copyright Quocirca © 2011

Despite fears of being replaced by robots or computers, the terms that twenty-five years ago described the use of IT in different professional sectors were less about substitution and more about support. Programmers used computer aided software engineering (CASE) tools, doctors used computer aided tomography (CAT) scanners and engineers used computer aided design and manufacturing (CADCAM) systems.

As IT has crept insidiously into all elements of life with applications and ‘amateur’ users everywhere, there has been a tendency towards over-reliance on the technology. This is often to the detriment of individuals with poorer employee training and to the detriment of business processes that are often simplified to fit the technology, rather than the end need.

Business processes should be strategically aligned to the overall goals of the organisation and tactically deliver on the day-to-day demands of stakeholders – in particular customers and ultimately shareholders. All to often solutions have been introduced by IT that don’t quite meet the operational business requirements, and adjustments are typically only one way. No wonder that the UK comedy programme Little Britain’s catchphrase “computer says no” has so much resonance, highlighting limitations of the technology and the initiative of the employee involved as well as inadequacies of the business process.

Losing the ability to spell and do simple arithmetic have also been put down to individuals relying on technology to do the thinking for them, with students even using internet search engines to generate entire pieces of work. Individual over reliance on technology is also well demonstrated by the appearance of road signs indicating ‘sat–nav error’. Some drivers slavishly follow their personal navigation systems, rather than thinking about their surroundings or using the sat-nav as only a guide and have become trapped or lost.

There is nothing wrong with using the computers to support, aid and assist, but abdicating all responsibility for the process that has been badly or incompletely thought out is not showing signs of artificial intelligence but automated stupidity.

This is not just a problem of navigation and sat-navs, but also more fundamental business processes, which ought to be supported, streamlined and improved by technology, rather than simply or clumsily automated. Printed communications from large businesses and institutions offer clear examples of this. 

Contact databases are often mined and mail merged to automatically generate letters, which completely fail to apply even the most basic intelligence to the process. For example letters from hospitals exhorting octogenarian outpatients to bring in money for prescriptions, when the IT system should have all the data it needs to ‘know’ they are exempt, but a suitable software trigger is not in place.

Perhaps some of the blame for this could be placed in the money grabbing palms of IT vendors and consultancies who advocated business process re-engineering (BPR) in the 1980s and 1990s, and offered it, silver bullet-like, as an externally delivered service. In prior years, many companies, especially in manufacturing would have had their own internal ‘organisation and methods’ departments, or would have employed consultants to simply measure or rationalise existing processes with time and motion studies and progress chasers.

The problems with BPR were two-fold; often due to the high cost it was a huge one-off exercise rather than continual incremental process, and it was often conducted by consultants with little direct experience of the specific market sector. Not only would these consultants often fail to understand the nuances of the industry sector they were advising, but the need to maximise their billable hours would mean they were unlikely to have sufficient time to keep completely up to speed with advances in technology. Result? BPR was an expensive blip, and now has a damaged reputation.

The type of ‘re-engineering’ generally proposed smacked of being so big an exercise that not only did it take too long, but no single person could understand its totality and it was not sufficiently flexible to deal with rapid changes and advances in IT. The emphasis shifts from assistance of something that anyone can understand to dependence on something too big to fail or be wrong.

However, new technologies and innovation – mobile working, social media, services in the cloud – force change in business processes, and so some different aspects of engineering should be applied from systems engineering – encapsulation and insulation.

The impact of the highly connected digital world on a business does not have to be tackled in one go in some massive unified or convergence process, but in incremental steps. The clever human part is in defining the separate objects and the intelligence to link them together, and then use IT to provide automated aid and deliver efficiency in each element.

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

The move to cloud is far more than an IT delivery model adjustment. It really presents a unique opportunity to get IT—and the business of IT—right at the highest levels.

On the main stage at VMworld 2011 recently, VMware Co-President Carl Eschenbach demonstrated that impact through testimonials on how cloud computing and virtualization infrastructure are advancing the business goals of three major corporations, Revlon, NYSE Euronext, and Southwest Airlines.

BriefingsDirect caught up with Eschenbach after the presentation to gain his impressions and insights on the scope and depth of cloud computing—and how it's impacting CIOs in general. The interview comes as part of a special BriefingsDirect podcast series from VMworld in Las Vegas. The interview was conducted by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: VMware is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: Some people seem to think that the move to cloud makes IT less relevant. Do you agree, and how are the CIOs you are talking to viewing it?

Eschenbach: When people ask if cloud is real or if it's happening, I can tell you unequivocally that the answer is yes. In fact, one of the things that VMware is so excited about is our position around cloud computing.

The reason I say that is that the cloud era is here, and VMware has the solutions to help our customers actually bridge the gap between their existing data centers and legacy applications to this new world of cloud computing. It's us and the strength of our ecosystem partners who are leading this technology innovation and services that enable people to accelerate their cloud adoption.

It's been a very exciting show here at VMworld. We had 20,000 plus people in attendance, and I can tell you that the energy at this show only proves that our industry is going through a major transformation toward cloud computing.

So while it's true there are some CIOs who are resistant or hesitant to move to the cloud, it's not whether they're going to in the future. It's really how fast. Clearly people are thinking about it. They need help along the way, because they need to bridge their existing investments, as I said earlier, to move to the cloud.

Once they find a way to do that in a very secure manner, people will start to build not public cloud offerings and solutions, not private cloud offerings and solutions, but they will truly build what we call a hybrid cloud.

Gardner: You seem to be saying that IT becomes more fundamental, that with cloud the role of IT becomes more strategic.

Eschenbach: IT needs to become a strategic asset or weapon to help drive revenue generation for the company. It no longer needs to be a cost center or just something that becomes a barrier to success for the company.

Today, in a lot of cases, people look at IT as the barrier, meaning they're not agile enough to service and support the line of business. In effect, what happens when you start to build either a private or public cloud, is that they actually become opaque. They become transparent to the line of business.

There's no longer an issue or challenge with how fast a company can roll out a new business opportunity or solution. It's actually removed now, when it gets to IT or the existing CIO organization, because they take that away. They're able to service them much faster, because when you deploy cloud-based solutions, you have a much more agile infrastructure to support the line of business.

Gardner: We've been hearing about cloud infrastructure management, cloud application platforms, end user computing, and additional use of virtualization on the client tier. This is coming together as a seamless strategy, and I'm curious about the paybacks.

Those companies that are biting this off fully, that are going full-bore at cloud at these different levels, seem to be getting a lot back in return. Do you see this as a whole greater than the sum of the parts? Is there an advantage to being a full cloud-enabled organization?

Eschenbach: There clearly is, Dana. We have customers that are going through multiple phases of a journey toward a cloud platform.

First, everyone has to start with just thinking about how they'll virtualize their existing assets and their data center, which is exactly what VMware has done over the last many years. We've helped our customers drive out a lot of CAPEX savings in IT by just moving to a highly virtualized environment.

But what cloud brings is more than just CAPEX savings. It brings OPEX savings and operational savings, because when you move from a highly virtualized infrastructure to a true private, public, or hybrid cloud, you are now focused on leveraging management and automation tools, which really then focuses on the OPEX savings you get.

So again, moving from a highly virtualized environment moves you from a technical discussion and a CAPEX savings discussion to one that’s more of a business benefit by leveraging cloud, because of the management and automation you put around that highly virtualized environment, therefore leading to much more agile infrastructure to service the business.

Gardner: I've been talking to a number of customers this week and I'm certainly hearing from them that the more they adopt and adapt to cloud, the better the returns. They're seeing better disaster recovery efficiencies. They're getting better data efficiencies. They're doing better with their networks. It seems as if it becomes pervasive.

But I'm wondering too, Carl, for those companies that resist this, are they facing a penalty? It seems to me that they could be at a competitive disadvantage pretty quickly.

Eschenbach: Among our customers, the people who typically resist moving to cloud-based architectures or solutions are actually the CIOs and their infrastructure team itself.

The reason for that is that the line of business has this notion, or has this understanding, that they can move to public cloud models and it's much cheaper, faster and, in some cases, they think more reliable. In effect, they forget that the CIO has processes in place, has existing expenses on building out its infrastructure, has security, compliance, and controls of the IT that’s already running on that infrastructure.

If we can help the CIO build out a cloud infrastructure within their own four walls of their data center, the line of business would much rather leverage them, if they can get all the security, compliance, and controls that they are accustomed to getting, but get it at a faster, cheaper rate, which is the promise of the public cloud.

So the CIOs are really the ones who may resist cloud today, but in the end they're the ones who have to move to a cloud faster, so the line of business does not go around them and fall into alternatives to support the business.

Gardner: That gets back to that relevancy. It seems to me that they risk becoming irrelevant if they resist, but they could actually increase their role and importance in the organization by embracing cloud.

Eschenbach: No question. There was an example on stage here. I had an opportunity to interview the CIO at Revlon. One of the things that he talked about was the fact that he increased the IT project throughput through his organization by 300 percent, when he built out a highly automated, private-cloud infrastructure.

What's happened, he said, is that the line of business and his business partners no longer think of IT as the barrier or the roadblock to rolling out new revenue-generating services. Instead they look to them, because they know they can service them in a much faster way.

Gardner: I look around me here at the show and I see some of the largest corporations in the world. I also see some of the largest IT vendors in the world. There's a big ecosystem that’s developed here.

But I'm also seeing smaller companies. So cloud’s message, cloud’s value to small to medium-sized business (SMBs), is it just as good as what we are telling them in terms of their enterprise size companies and the benefits. Or is there even greater opportunity for SMBs?

Eschenbach: Cloud provides business benefit for all types of customers, regardless of the vertical market segment they're in or their size and scope.

If you think about cloud computing, the promise it brings customers is the ability to get access to infrastructure and data in a very cost-efficient, rapid way and only pay for what you use. It's a great value proposition, regardless of size and scope of your organization and company.

With that being said, some of the people moving to cloud services first are actually SMB organizations and companies, because they don’t necessarily have the IT skill set that’s required to keep up with the business demands. Therefore, if they can get this service from someone else, and get a service level agreement (SLA) that’s relevant to their business, then they will move to a cloud model faster than the large enterprises will.

We're seeing many SMB and mid-sized companies move to cloud-based models and offerings much faster than the large enterprise or the multinationals.

Gardner: Let's slice it another way. How about vertical industry-specific clouds? We've started to see a little bit of this. NYSE is probably a great example. Do you expect to see more of that, where we've got intermediaries between a general-purpose cloud approach and that more specific to the business processes that are germane and relevant to specific industries?

Eschenbach: We're really excited about the partnership we've formed with the NYSE Euronext and the Capital Markets Community Platform that we had announced back in May. The feedback from that announcement has been pretty positive.

In fact, their CIO was on stage with me just the other day, and he not only spoke about how they're supporting their own infrastructure at NYSE Euronext based on vSphere, but now with this Capital Markets cloud they are taking some of their same services and offering them to this new community cloud market.

While that is the first cloud that was really stood up, we do expect and believe that there will be other vertical clouds that are going to be stood up, whether it's in the federal government, where there’s already been some announcements around that.

I also think you can anticipate seeing some other financial services clouds, as well as healthcare clouds, being stood up as well. This is a trend that will continue.

One of the reasons we believe it will continue is because people can stand up clouds and bring very specific business benefit that is very repeatable across the customers who are going to run on that cloud because they are in the same vertical. If they have the same compliance issues, or security, or other regulatory things that they have to adhere to, building a community cloud for one specific vertical is a lot easier than trying to serve an entire market with multiple vertical clouds.

Gardner: I'm still impressed by the amount of energy I'm seeing here. You'd never know that we have an economic stagnation problem around the world. People here are really jazzed, but I suppose we need to look at this as a trying time as well.

What are you encouraged by in your meetings with folks and discussions in terms of how they are able to do more with less essentially?

Eschenbach: This week I've had a great opportunity to spend a lot of time with customers and our ecosystem set of partners. I can tell you that everyone is excited for this major tectonic shift we are seeing in the industry, and these shifts only happen every 10 or 20 years.

People are starting to say that this whole cloud computing era is coming to life, and people are trying to look at IT in a different way. They want IT to be their business partner so that they can differentiate themselves in this global economic environment.

One thing that VMware and our ecosystem set of partners do is that we allow our customers to do more with less, and that’s kind of a cliché statement. A lot of people say, we will bring IT services and solutions to you and we will allow you to do more with less. Well, quite honestly, if you look back over the history of VMware, that has been a very consistent value proposition that we bring to our customers.

Even potentially in a down market or a market where we have a strong headwind, I believe VMware and the rich set of ecosystem partners we have, we will always move to the top of the pile, when people think about IT investments, because we will indeed reduce their overall CAPEX and OPEX cost, at the same time providing better IT agility for the lines of business.

As we move into 2012, our customers and business partners can continue to bet on VMware as being a very strategic weapon for them to differentiate themselves in this very competitive market.

The thing I will end on here is one thing that we are focused on is helping our customers go through this transformation towards cloud computing in a very programmatic way that allows them to protect their existing assets in the data center, and also protect their legacy applications, but move to a new world of cloud computing all at the same time. That is what excites me in the opportunity we collectively have with our partners as we look into 2012.

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

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

We assembled a distinguished panel in conjunction with the recent Open Group Conference in Austin, Texas, to explore the impact, role and opportunity for business architecture.

We'll examine how the definition of business architect has matured, and we'll see why it’s so important for this new role to flourish in today’s dynamic business and IT landscapes. We'll also see how certification and training are helping to shape the business architecture leaders of tomorrow.

Here to help better understand the essential impact of business architecture on business success is Harry Hendrickx, the Chief Technology Officer, CME Industry Unit, HP Enterprise Services and a Certified Global Enterprise Architect; Dave van Gelder, Global Architect in the Financial Services Strategic Business Unit at Capgemini; Mieke Mahakena, Label Leader for Architecture in the Training Portfolio at Capgemini Academy and also a Certified Architect; Peter Haviland, head of Architecture Services in the Americas for Ernst & Young, and Kevin Daley, Chief Architect in the Technology and Innovation Group at IBM Global Business Services.

The discussion is moderated by Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. [Disclosure: The Open Group, HP and Capgemini are sponsors of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Here are some excerpts:

Gardner: We see that CEOs around the world really are seeking fundamental change from IT. They recognize that we're at an inflection point. Why then is the role of business architect so important now?

Hendrickx: Over the past one or two decades, business-IT alignment has been number one on the CIO agenda, and apparently the organizations have increasing difficulty getting business-IT alignment resolved.

There are quite a few people pioneering in business-IT alignment, but apparently there was no urgency yet to recognize this role more specifically.

HP, in the past two years, interviewed CIOs worldwide, and they all indicated that they face quite large and complex transformation processes. They also recognize that business-IT alignment is one of key issues. We think that the business architect really can provide some resolution to get those processes in better shape and more successful.

Daley: At IBM, we have a CEO study and a CIO study that come out in alternating years. One of the things that started coming out loud and clear in 2010 was that managing complexity and building operating dexterity required a better understanding across the entire company.

We've started seeing a trend to move not just from business-IT alignment, but to business and IT convergence. There's an understanding more and more that information technology, and technology in general, is a core part of the business model now. There's an understanding that now we have a situation where business and IT aren’t so much aligned, because of the fact that IT is part of business.

Where we did interviews and surveys and then compiled them for thousands of CEOs, we came up with three key elements. Amongst those was managing and taking advantage of complexity while building operating dexterity. That’s the key theme.

One of the problems that we're seeing from the CEOs is having for decades separated IT as if it was its own business unit, instead of part of the true sense of the business. It's been an interpretive science. To manage that complexity they needed a means by which to start with the design of where they're going and have have a business strategy.

How do they take that strategy and transform it into technology and into information management? They needed an ability to have a framework in which to have that substantive discussion between the people who were responsible, such as the CIO who is responsible for technology and the operations and the COOs, who are really about the execution of the overall picture.

What we've seen from our CEOs is a need to start being more integrated. There have been market pressures that they having to respond to. The big economic downturn was a big change for everyone, and they are trying to address it.

They're looking at means that they can start integrating more globally. They can start to increase their cost variability and start becoming more agile in how they operate their business. To do that they need a means by which they can more effectively communicate.

So far, we've been seeing that business architecture is a perfect way to start driving an understanding. It's a place where both people who are used to seeing standard business models like revenue and capability are able to associate that to the different types of architectures and designs that we see coming out of the technology group.

It's giving them a common place to meet and jointly move forward with what they're trying to do in terms of managing the complexity, so they can be more agile and dexterous.

Gardner: What are the stakes here for business architecture and for organizations that can master this? How important is this now?

Haviland: It’s extremely important. What I see is that this is a discipline that’s just crying out for more people and more maturity. You almost need it to become pervasive throughout organizations now.

The most common story I encounter is simply that organizations spent a lot of time in the past creating their processes and then they spent a lot of time feeding technology solutions to those processes. In recent times, the pace of technology change has moved faster than that previous paradigm.

What you're looking at is at people saying, well, I am the business, there are all of these technology options out there. I cannot find a way forward and so how do I exploit those? That is where the business architecture profession is really being pushed to the front.

That said, there is a slight risk here that it may be considered too much in isolation. I mean, it is an architecture profession, it is a part of architecture, and the value of architecture is to provide that aligned view across the various domains that are important in terms of business, technology, information, security, and those types of elements.

When it comes back to what’s at stake for businesses that are investing in this particular area and for businesses that are trying to reconsider the way that they can operate themselves to support technology, they are moving ahead and they have competitive advantage. Businesses that aren’t doing that tend to be left behind, because the pace of change of technology is going to get faster.

Gardner: Does a business architect and architecture have to be at a high level to be successful? Where in the org chart do we typically see this role? Is it near the top? Does it matter?

van Gelder: It depends on the maturity of an organization. Within Capgemini nowadays, we talk about business technology. As Kevin said, business and technology are not separate. Technology is part of the total business.

When we started the Business Architecture Working Group in 2006, there was a lot of discussion about two words, business and architecture, and nobody knew exactly what we were talking about. Everybody had a different understanding of those words. In the last years what you have seen is that business architecture is looked at in a different way.

Currently in the Business Architecture Working Group, we see business architecture as something that brings the balance between all the other architectures in the company—that’s IT architecture, financial architecture, money, people architecture, and a lot of other architectures.

If business architecture is bringing the balance between the different aspects of a company, then business architecture is something that should be handled in the top of the organization, because balance should be created between all the different aspects in the organization.

Gardner: What then is the fundamental problem that the business architect needs to solve?

Mahakena: It's more like making sure that, whatever transformation you're going to implement, you align all those different aspects. As Dave told us, there are a number of aspects in an organization that might need to change, and you can have all those different architectures for those aspects. But, if every aspect goes its own way in changing, then they will never be aligned. Business architecture is meant to align all of those aspects to make sure that you have a balanced, consistent, and coherent set of operations at the end.

Gardner: It sounds as if we're in agreement that this is a high level function, but what is it that people might stumble upon, if they direct this in a wrong direction? What is business architecture not good at?

Haviland: Business architecture is similar to other forms of architecture, in that it tends to try to do many things all at once. The idea of enterprise alignment is definitely the right outcome, but there is enough complexity there to blow steam out of your head for many, many years to come.

Certainly, in our experience in implementing these types of functions in organizations, functions that constrain scope very well, also tend to communicate very well around what their status is, what their progress is against milestones, and what outcomes they've achieved, and they tend to articulate those outcomes in terms of real business value.

What business architecture is not very good at are broad-reaching types of goals that don’t have measurable outcomes.

Gardner: Anyone could stand up and call themselves a business architect, but what is The Open Group, in particular, doing about actually certifying and moving toward a standardization of some sort?

Hendrickx: The first question we get asked is, what's the difference between a business consultant and a business architect or a business analyst and a business architect? We also have enterprise architect and technology architects. Is there a reason for being for the business architect?

This is something we did a lot of research on at HP and we delineated the role of the business architect quite clearly from the business consulting and the business analyst aspect.

The business architect's role is distinct, because he combines the organizational strategy with the operations. He identifies the implications of this strategy, as well as that of the technology for the business operations. This is opposed to the business consultant, who is more outwardly looking to the commercial aspects of the organization and what that means for the structure. The business analyst is looking more at not the structure of the operation, but at the solution level.

When we look at the enterprise architect and the solution architect, the business architect focuses more on the complete implications of the strategy and technology trends on the operations, whereas the enterprise architect is more interested in the IT and the implications for the IT strategy and how IT should be deployed. The business architect is much more focused on the complete performance of the business operations.

So, the bottom line of these delineations of the past one-and-a-half years is that there is a reason for being for a business architect. It is a distinct role and it has a real solution for a problem.

Mahakena: What we've been doing in the Business Forum, after we decided that business architecture has its own reason for existence, we described the business architecture profession—what's the scope and what should be the outcome of business architecture. Now, we're working on the practice of business architecture by defining a framework, looking at methods, and defining approaches you can use to do business architecture.

Parallel to that, if you know what the profession is and what the practice is, you're able to create the business architecture certification, because those things help you define the required skills and experience a business architect needs. So, we are working on that in the Business Forum.

Daley: Let's look at business architecture from the concept that has existed, combining the thoughts of what Mieke and Harry have already talked about. When we work with clients, for those of us that are in consultancies, we see that there is normally something that’s similar to business architecture, but it's either a shadow organization inside a purely business unit that isn't technology focused, or it is things like the enterprise architects who are having to learn the business concepts around business architect anecdotally, so that they can be successful in their roles.

I'd suggest that we're seeing a need to make it more refined and more explicit, so that we're able to identify the people that fit for this. They have specific things, instead of having general things that we have today. For me, the certification helps provide that certainty as a hiring manager or as somebody who is looking to staff an organization.

It provides that kind of clarity of what they should be doing, giving them specific activities, specific things they do that create value for the company. It takes out of the behind the scenes action and pull something that's critical to success into the front with people who are specifically aligned and educated to do that.

Gardner: How does the globalization impact the importance of this role?

Haviland: Globalization is creating more and more complexity in the business models that organizations are trying to operate. Over the last couple of decades, with the science and engineering of IT, there has been enormous investment by companies to actually operate, maintain, and improve their IT in their current world.

In many cases, this IT work has outpaced the comparable business efforts inside those organizations, when they actually think about their business, their business models, and their business operating principles.

What we're actually seeing now is that the rigor, the engineering, and the effort that’s put into technical architecture and IT architecture is now being proposed on the business side, with many business management process improvement activities. These tend to be at quite a low level, however, when you compare them to business architecture initiatives at the enterprise level.

If those architecture initiatives are at the high levels that are needed, you start to consider the scope and challenges that come into play, when you start talking about globalization. So, with the increase in scope and the global way that people are operating across cultures, geographies, and languages, that requires this discipline, which does operate at that high level to start to organize the other areas, but perhaps at a lower level.

Hendrickx: There are two aspects that need to be paid more attention to with globalization and more complexity. First, the business architect is, or should be, equipped to look at the organization, not only within the boundaries of an organization, but also the ecosystem of organizations that will mold together and have to be connected to produce the value.

Since these are more formalized contracts or relationships with different organizations connected to each other, there is a dynamic that is hardly seen anymore, that is not transparent anymore. There clearly needs to be some more detailed insights and transparency for each organization, so that people understand what the impact of certain developments or events will be. This can't be done just by logic or just by watching carefully. This really needs some in-depth analysis for which the business architecture is built.

The second part of it is that due to the complexity, the decision making process has become more complex and there will be more stakeholders involved in the different areas of decision making. The business architect has a clear task and challenge as well. By absorbing the strategy, technology trends, and the different developments and focusing on the applications for operations, he has the opportunity to discuss with the different stakeholders. He has the opportunity to get those stakeholders either mobilized or focused on specific decisions: the deliverables you will provide.

Gardner: We certainly see a lot of important characteristics in this role: global, strategic high level, encompassing business understanding, as well as technology. Where do you go to find these kinds of people? Who tends to make a good business architect or is there no real pattern yet established as to who steps up to the plate to be able to manage this type of a job?

van Gelder: To all the complexity already mentioned, I'd want to add something else that we found in the Business Architecture Working Group, which is more research in the whole field. That's the problem of communication. How do people communicate with each other?

If you look in the IT world, most people come from an engineering background. It's hard enough to talk to each other and to be clear to each other about what's possible and how you should go or what you should go for. If you start talking to all those other areas in the business, then suddenly people have a completely other way of thinking. Sometimes they use the same words and don't understand each other.

It’s not easy to have these kinds of people that need very good communication skills next to all the complexity that you have to handle. On the other hand, you need an architect when it's complex. You don't need an architect when it's simple, because everybody can do it. But an architect is just a person. I say if I am a simple person, I can only handle simple things.

What you need are people who can structure. I can only work with things when I can structure it, when the complexity is fairly well-structured. I then have overview of all those complexities, and then I can start communicating with all the parties I have to communicate with.

At the moment, I don't see any real training or development of these kinds of people that you need. Most of them come with a lot of experience in a lot of fields, and because of that, they have the possibility to talk to all kinds of people and to bring the message.

Gardner: Mieke, at Capgemini Academy, you’ve obviously encouraged and encountered folks moving towards a business architect role. What are your thoughts on what it takes and where they tend to come from?

Mahakena: Let's have a look where they can come from. What you see is that this role of business architect can be a next step in one’s career. For example, a business analyst, who has been creating a lot of experience in all kinds of fields, and he could evolve to watch a business architect. This person needs to get away from the detail and move towards the strategy and a more holistic view.

Another example could be an enterprise architect who already has analytics skills and communication skills. But, enterprise architects are more or less focusing on IT, so they should move more towards the business part and towards strategy and operations.

One could be the business consultant who is now focusing on strategy, also should have those communication skills, and will be able to communicate with stakeholders in high positions in companies. Business consultants have a lot of industry knowledge. So they should need more knowledge about technology and perhaps improve their analytics skills and learn more to how to structure operations.

So, there are number of existing roles that already have a lot of skills required for business architecture. They just have to enhance skills and get new skills to do this new role.

Gardner: We talked about how this is important because of the internal organizational shifts and the need for transformation. We’ve seen how globalization makes this more important, but I’d like to also look a little bit at some of the trends and technology.

We’ve seen a great deal of emphasis on cloud computing, hybrid computing, the role of mobile devices, wirelessly connected devices, sensors, and fabric of information which, of course, leads to massive data, and they need to then analyze that data.

This is just a handful of some of the major technology trends. Kevin Daley, it seems to me that managing these trends and these new capabilities for organizations also undergirds and supports this need. So how do you see the technology impetus for encouraging the role of business architect?

Daley: I'm seeing from my work in the field that we’ve got all these things that are converging. Certainly, you've got all these enabling technologies and things that are emerging that are making it easier to do technology types of things and speeding them up. So, as they start maturing and as organizations start consuming them, what we’re seeing is that there’s a lack of alignment.

What this trend is really doing is making sure that you have something that is your controlling device that says what is the business relevancy? Are we measuring these peer-to-peer—measuring something such as massive data and information fabrics compared to something like cloud computing, where you are dispersing the ability to access that more readily. It creates a problem in that you have to make sure that people are aligned on what they're trying to accomplish.

We're seeing that the technologies that are emerging are actually enabling business architecture in a fashion. It provides that unified vision, that holism, that you can start looking at combinations of these technologies, instead of having to look at them as we’ve had to in the past of siloed elements of technologies that have their own implications.

We're using business architecture as a means to provide the information back to the business analyst who is going to look and help. You can provide the business implications, but then you have to analyze what that implication means and make decisions for how much of that you’re willing to accept within your organization.

In the notions around how I investigate risk, how I look at what is going to improve market, and what is the capacity of what I can do, there's a disconnect that business for which architecture is helping provide the filler for to get to the people that are doing these corporate strategies and corporate analysis at a level. That allows them to virtualize the concept of the technology, consume what it means and what that relates to for a business or in terms of its operation and strategy and the technology itself.

We’re seeing this become the means by which you can have that universal understanding that these are the implications, and that those implications can now be layered, so that you can look at them in combination instead of having to deal with each technology trend as if it's a standalone piece.

We're seeing this as a means by which to provide some clarity around what any adoption would be. When you adopt technology, it obviously has a level of maturity it has to reach, but it also has a level of complexity. It's being able to start taking advantage of more than just one technology trend at the same time and being able to realistically deliver that into their business model.

What I have been seeing is that the technologies are driving the need for business architecture, because they need that framework to make sure that they are talking apples to apples and that they are meaning the same thing, so that we get out of the interpretation that we have had in the past and get into something that’s very tactical and very tactile, and that you can structure and align in the same way, so you understand what the full ramifications are.

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

By: Andy Jones, Director and General Manager, Europe, Xerox Global Document Outsourcing Posted: 25th July 2011 Copyright Xerox Global Document Outsourcing © 2011

Cost savings remain top of mind in the wake of the UK Government’s first official budget and as we anticipate the next stage of the Comprehensive Spending Review. This focus has created a number of unique challenges that are increasing the demands on an organisational infrastructure: 

• Deep budget cuts to central and local government programmes and, inevitably, to headcount, have encouraged public sector bodies to consolidate the number of suppliers and procurements between departments in an effort to lower costs. Suppliers must support the UK Government’s search for efficiency and savings and are expected to provide the expertise to improve services.

• In order to deliver services more efficiently, the Government is looking to best-in-class delivery models which are standardised, optimised and scalable.

• As taxpayers increasingly want to know where their money is being spent, there is a need for greater transparency. The public focus on performance, results and return on investment means public sector organisations need clear, appropriate service level agreements. Management information to track performance against the agreements is also a must.

• The demand by constituents for convenience and choice in the communications channels that they use to interact with UK Government means agencies must adapt. To instil change, agencies will need to study best practices from the commercial sector and Government activities abroad, as well as between existing departments and agencies.

Meeting the new expectations is not an easy task, and many organisational infrastructures, in both the public and private sector, simply are not up to the challenge. Today’s emphasis on meeting short-term financial targets by avoiding large capital expenditures and taking existing assets off the balance sheet takes precedence over decisions to initiate change. And, as time passes, the infrastructures become ever more costly to update. To reverse this trend, it’s best to think of infrastructure as a strategy for growth and identify the areas that would benefit most from modernisation.

Picking your targets
When it comes to an organisation’s infrastructure, most people immediately think of information and communications technologies. This is true of the UK Government too, with the ICT industry being an immediate target for achieving cost savings through the formation of the Efficiency Reform Group. The estimated UK Government expenditure in this area is c£18bn p.a., according to the likes of Kable and Intellect.

Yet there are additional and even larger areas to consider. We believe the document-related costs of UK Government could be as much as £50bn p.a. The costs of handling, processing, filing, archiving and destruction of documents—as well as other steps in the document life cycle—are several times those of ICT. As such they are a very worthwhile target for efficiency savings.

In the past, improving these processes did not go much beyond a simple review of office-based printing with the idea of ‘printing less’. This narrow approach ignores the critical role printed documents play in business processes. To truly improve the infrastructure, it’s preferable to review how documents are printed across an organisation.

For example, there are multiple records that relate to one individual citizen, so Government departments have typically used printed records to understand the whole picture. Paper essentially is the ‘glue’ that holds many of these existing processes together. However, in an increasingly digital world, print often limits processes, representing one of the key features of a ‘legacy infrastructure.’  Following are several examples of where Xerox has helped public sector organisations transform their document-related processes.

Transformation in practice – The Department for Work & Pensions
The UK Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) wanted to review and revamp the end-to-end management of forms across more than 1,000 offices. The idea was to make information clearer and more accessible to the more than 20 million UK citizens it serves. The DWP faced two major challenges: meeting UK Government requirements to improve efficiency and reduce costs and eliminating repetitive processes performed by multiple suppliers in individual department silos.

Xerox worked with the DWP to create an infrastructure that supports continually improving service, is measured against advancing targets, and delivers value at every stage. The chosen solution transformed document services by creating a single-service management infrastructure for all core print and related requirements.

The effort has produced savings in a number of different areas:

• 30,000 office devices rationalised to 8,000
• Device energy use cut in half
• Warehouse space cut by 12 percent, from 90,500 to 80,000 square feet
• Wasted print reduced by 66 percent
• Average document review cycle shortened by 40 percent, from five months to three
• Improved quality and effectiveness of communications with citizens
• 21 percent overall savings in line with Government efficiency review targets

Transformation in practice – Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust wanted to digitise traditionally paper-based services, specifically patient records. The Trust looked to achieve a 20 percent reduction in costs and a 20–25 percent improvement in lead times for print jobs through the use of a Web portal and standardisation of work processes. In order to meet the needs of both patients and staff, it also needed transparent reporting on service levels, demonstrating immediately improved efficiency.

Xerox worked with Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust to develop a ten-year records management partnership. The project was broken down into phases with the idea of continually improving service while rolling out the use of electronic records. Medical and union stakeholders would be involved throughout the process.

Just two years into the project, improvements have appeared in a number of areas:

• 7,500 missing records found, leading to improved patient safety
• Complaints eliminated as files available at point of need
• Records staff transferred to Xerox, equipped with new skills and now working in safe environment
• Expected savings of £2 million over ten years
• Secure information governance and auditing standards implemented

What are the barriers to transformation?
These examples demonstrate the substantial benefits of modernising government infrastructure, and they point to what can happen when organisational leaders look beyond hitting short-term financial targets. It’s important to note, however, that these efforts do not come without a lot of work and a certain amount of risk. It seems a fairly obvious point, but suppliers need to demonstrate the return on investment of every single project and ensure they focus on outcomes.

Through its experience working with a number of different organisations, Xerox has identified six key guideposts that mark the path to successful modernisation. These points were summarised in a whitepaper presented by ACS, a Xerox company, to the U.S. White House last year. The whitepaper was prepared following the White House forum on modernising government, which took place on January 14, 2010.

According to the white paper:

• Success breeds success, incrementally. Don’t try to do too much too soon. Success requires continuous improvement and refinement.
• Start at the end. Focus on what your customers—or rather citizens—want, and don’t forget to communicate.
• The social and technological landscape may be changing with extraordinary speed, but many core human characteristics remain vital. Be sure to look at how technology fits into the bigger picture of what customers really want.
• Technology alone won’t deliver transformation. Policies and regulations, staffing, programme design and other aspects of operations all play a part as well in driving cultural change.
• Focus in on risks. Manage risks actively, be ready to recover, and get experts involved to help you keep your project on track.
• Measure what matters, know what counts, and deliver results.
• No two modernisation efforts are alike. Set goals, plan accordingly and prepare for the unexpected.

At Xerox, we believe these points are extremely relevant to the UK public sector. As the case studies above illustrate, results happen when focus is put on the interactions between operations, technology, and policy.  Marrying the demands of government and citizens with the capabilities of your infrastructure requires vision and the help of a trusted partner experienced in making these transformations happen. 

By: David Norris, Practice Leader - Analytics, Bloor Research Posted: 25th July 2011 Copyright Bloor Research © 2011

Having been invited to attend a briefing by IBM into the outcome of their recent spate of acquisitions to form the foundation of their Business Analytics and Optimization organisation I was more than just interested as an analyst. I was at Tandem when they merged with Compaq, and then we merged with Digital, and finally we all got rolled into HP. During that whole period I was left dazed and confused and saw value being eroded rather than enhanced, so I was fascinated to hear about how IBM had got on.

To start with, the trail of acquisitions has not just been about gaining scale, they have clearly selected the products carefully and there is a clear master plan underpinning what they have been doing. The Business Analytics and Optimization practice is one of the cornerstones of the growth plans for IBM; this is not just a bit part play, this is one of their flagship areas of focus, and they have a very coherent story to tell surrounding it.

To give an idea of the scale of what has been going on, the list of acquisitions is impressive. IBM acquired Cognos, one of the leading Business Intelligence suites; they acquired SPSS for their predictive analytics and data mining capabilities; they acquired Netezza, one of the leading appliances for building massive data warehouses at affordable price performance points; they have acquired Unica, one of the leading Marketing automation suites; and Coremetrics for web analytics and digital marketing optimization. This is an impressive list and provides them with coverage that puts them in the forefront of capability. Indeed, the only company that can match this spread and depth of capability at the software level is SAS, and the others such as Oracle, Microsoft and SAP, whilst offering similar breadth of capability, do not have the clarity of vision that is evident with IBM at present.

All of the elements have their own story to tell about how they bring value, and together there is clear evidence of value add from the synergy of the total package, but the most telling element was to hear from the Professional Services side how these underpinning technical and consulting capabilities are being brought together to enable clients to transform their business practices by applying greater intelligence to their operations and thereby reduce costs, increase markets, satisfy customers and prove that, in a world where things are being increasingly commoditised, in order to compete it is essential to be as smart as possible, to ensure that business is flexible and responsive.

It appears that the likes of IBM and Oracle have now worked out how to make a success of mergers and acquisitions and come out with far more than the sum of the parts. IBM have traditionally been a major player in the analytics and business intelligence space, but now they are even stronger and offer a very compelling solution. I believe that SAS, at the software level, are the only provider to match this capability. The other members of the Big 4 will need to work very hard to catch up.

By: Dominic Monkhouse, Managing Director EMEA, PEER 1 Hosting Posted: 16th June 2011 Copyright PEER 1 Hosting © 2011

There are a lot of myths and misunderstandings that make finding the right provider very difficult. Questions that always arise are - how do you know you’re getting good service and value for money? What should you do if you suspect you’re not?

Here are the basic facts you need to know about hosting:

What goes on behind closed doors?
Many hosting providers do not make it a policy to notify customers when they experience downtime. What this means in reality is that your website was out of action and you didn’t even know. For e-commerce businesses, SMEs outsourcing software or white-label web services, this isn’t just an inconvenience, it can hit profits. Finding out revenue has taken a hit due to faulty web availability is never an easy thing to take—nor should it be accepted.

Make sure your hosting provider reports regularly on uptime—don’t take their ‘uptime guarantee’ as gospel. It should also live by its SLA (Service Level Agreement) and provide regular reports, rather than granting credits retrospectively for downtime. It’s also worth noting that large chunks of downtime are often excluded from credits under the guise of ‘trouble-shooting’. Have a conversation with your provider and agree how uptime will be proved, what the process is, and what the definition of ‘downtime’ actually is. This way you’ll know exactly what you’re entitled to and it’ll be difficult for your hosting provider to get away with poor service.

Know what you’re paying for
Many hosting providers will give you an all-in fee for set-up, hardware, operating system, support and bandwidth. This may seem like an easy option but the problem with these deals is you can’t see exactly where your money is going, and so can’t see if you’re paying for things you don’t need. The best way to ensure you’re not taken for a ride is to ask for a breakdown of services and individual quotes for support, bandwidth, additional hardware etc. It’s the only way to know what’s being delivered, what isn’t, and what is surplus to requirements.

Always ask about pricing for over-usage. What happens if you exceed your allotted monthly bandwidth? And how much more will it cost to add an extra Gig of RAM? Over-usage pricing can be horrendous and a sharp shock if you weren’t expecting it. You need to know what’s included and, more importantly, what isn’t. Ask for the extra cost of things like memory, hard-drive, bandwidth per Gig and back-up to be quoted separately, as they could come back to bite you.

Know who is really hosting you and do your own research
In some cases, a hosting provider will actually have a host itself. This means you may be paying a margin when you could get a better prince and SLA by going direct. The closer you are to the host, the faster the fault resolution so it pays to do a bit of research.

One of the best tools to discover your real host is the anti-phishing toolbar from netcraft.com. It allows you to see who is hosting your site and the other sites they are hosting. If you don’t want to ask your provider for a reference, but you do want to find and contact some of its customers, this is the perfect way to do it.

References are always good. One way to avoid being conned is the Alphabet Test. Ask for your provider’s references, ignore them, then choose any letter of the alphabet and ask for three references beginning with that letter. If you don’t get any, you know the initial references weren’t exactly robust.

Understand your contract and your exit options
Many hosting providers will offer a discount on longer term contracts which may sound like a good deal. But if the provider isn’t delivering within the SLA, you’re stuck with poor service or forced to pay a hefty exit fee. Instead, sign a month to month contract. You may pay a little more, but you will have the flexibility to leave or alter your hosting agreement at any point which will make life easier in the long-run.

If you are stuck in a long contract with a bad provider, it’s often worth paying the exit fee to switch to a month-to-month contract. Moving between hosting providers is not hard or difficult, there are many digital agencies that can handle migration projects without difficulty, so don’t be put off about changing things and never resign yourself to bad service.

By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 2nd June 2011 Copyright Quocirca © 2011

There are usually two diverse opinions voiced with the introduction of any new technology; some will present it as the solution for everything and use it despite adverse consequences, others will deny it has any real value and rigidly stick to what they've become used to.

There have been plenty of examples the first of these views. From examples such as 'The Last One' a 1980s tool aimed to replace the need to ever write software again to the Apple Newton touchscreen personal digital assistant in the 1990s, disappointment can quickly follow impressive overhype. What the vendors think will be major milestones or paradigm shifts turn into inch pebbles and blips on the technology landscape. Those who have adopted unreservedly find they are stuck down a cul-de-sac and have to change plans and start again.

So is it safer to be a cynic and stay closer to the latter stance?

Not always. The risk, often stated by those hyping up the technology, is of being completely left behind. While this might overstate the issue, there is the risk of a missed opportunity to re-evaluate what the business and its stakeholders are really about.

For example, the recent surge in interest in tablets, in particular Apple's iPad. Notwithstanding that anyone who has the slightest positive comment is labeled a 'fanboi', detractors of their business merits focus on two main aspects—lack of a 'real' keyboard and poor support for Microsoft Office. Both are valid comments, especially as they are often made in the context of the tablet as a laptop or even desktop replacement, however, the word 'replacement' needs more scrutiny.

When computers entered the working environment, they replaced previously manual central processing functions, and most people had little direct interaction with them. Only when PCs became pervasive did a major change occur from an employee’s perspective. To do work, it became necessary for many to go to a computer, typically at a desk. However, few roles truly need to be deskbound for the whole working day. There may have been some whose raison d’etre is content creation—graphical or textual—where sitting at a drawing board, typewriter etc was the norm, but most workers in offices, factories and hospitals only need a desk for somewhere to belong, do the odd bit of paperwork and these days occasionally access their PC.

But as PCs became more pervasive and embedded in working practices people became tethered to the desktop and since it was now equipped with various applications so that anyone could easily and casually create content—presentations, spreadsheets documents, email etc—they did. The result? A proliferation of unmanaged data and communications overload. The John Cleese training video “Meetings, bloody meetings” about how companies and individuals had got sucked into constant time-wasting meetings instead of working on what was really important could be re-mastered for the digital age as “Desktops, bloody desktops”.

Over the last couple of decades, the proliferation of PCs, then laptops, with almost ubiquitous connectivity, has spread concepts and technology from the world of work into the heart of the home. The recent arrival of smartphones and tablets combined with widespread cellular networks has accelerated more individual aspects including social networking and the opposite movement of consumer technology into the workplace. Now the main technology themes surrounding businesses are attempts to bring cohesion to it all to improve worker productivity with mobile working, unified communications and collaboration.

The impact on the once singly dominant PC in all this is intriguing. While they have greatly evolved, they are still at heart the marriage of a typewriter and monitor forcing creative use onto a desk or a lap. Bloated files of charts, busy pages of words and data tables of cells ensure that users need to keep close to the screen. Everybody can use the PC or laptop to communicate, receiving emails in remote locations, making calls with IP telephony or messaging, but in a closed and personal way, almost oblivious to those physically around them. The experience is relatively formal, contrived and difficult to share—either to collaborate with someone alongside, or to pass to someone over a desk.

The tablet form factor is far more informal, akin to a piece of paper. It is not Personal Computing but generally a shared digital experience. It is not well-suited to the over weight and stilted data of an office desktop, but to consolidated, filtered, aggregated information and multi-media content. The combination of social interaction, smart consumer design with universal network access and power to drive all digital content seems to fit the bill for allowing most people to simply get on with the productive activities they need to do, rather than be constrained by a technology straightjacket into wasting time.

There are many highly successful products that have a major impact over a long period of time that eventually start to outlive their usefulness or relevance. It then becomes worth considering a major change, no matter how problematic it first appears. Some will cynically see the increasing sales of tablets like the Apple iPad as the latest fad or craze—fine for the techno-junkies and Apple fanbois but not relevant to the real world which is filled with serious tools like a BlackBerry or Microsoft Office.

The reality is that working practices have always adapted to fit the constraints and limitations of the tools available. New tools give everyone an opportunity to re-appraise business and personal practices, and see if they have been blinkered to new possibilities by being too settled with ‘that’s how it’s always been’.

By: Craig Denton, CEO, Next Connex Posted: 23rd May 2011 Copyright Next Connex © 2011

Whether you love or loathe them, TV property programmes such as Location, Location, Location are popular because they tap into peoples’ aspirations for a better environment, and their desire to get more value from their investment. 

The same aspirations apply in business. You may want to make more effective use of your premises, or to reduce capital expenditure. Colocating—moving your servers to a data centre—promises to do this by freeing up valuable office space, and cutting capital expenditure on IT, which in turn streamlines your budget.

But just like buying a new house, it’s a step that shouldn’t be taken lightly. So how do you establish if colocating is right for your business? And if it is, how should you go about choosing the right colocation partner? Here’s a practical guide to help you navigate the decisions, and ask the right questions.

Going colo: doing the maths
The main driver behind most decisions to colocate is usually cost. As your IT and server estate grows, so do the costs of power, cooling, and housing the equipment. If you have multiple racks of equipment in your main office building, colo can become an attractive option, freeing up usable space and reducing energy bills. 

You should consider the rent paid, or money that could be made by reusing or leasing the space used by the racks. Even the business rates you pay on that floor space can be factored in.

If an application is business-critical, colocation reduces risk. Local server rooms can be exposed to theft, fire, water damage and more. Furthermore, they rely on the Internet connection and power feeds to your office building, which are rarely as resilient as those to data centres.

Also consider any impending business changes that may necessitate relocation, or a replacement or upgrade in technology. Any combination of these factors can make colocation a viable option. 

Flexibility counts
Calculations can be relatively straightforward—comparing the cost of extending your current in-house server room versus a smaller outlay to begin colocating, or using a colo facility to implement a disaster recovery option to support IT at your main office. 

In these situations, going colo can typically be accomplished in a shorter time than constructing new facilities—an advantage when a company needs to respond quickly to keep focus on its business objectives.

Choose your partner
However, while cost is a key factor in the initial decision to colocate, there’s more to choosing the right colocation partner than the price alone. 

For instance, if the colocation host can’t offer availability or connectivity that exceeds what you have currently, then any savings could easily disappear because of unscheduled downtime. Remember that colocation isn’t just another room to put your servers in: it’s part of your company’s IT backbone

So choosing the right partner is critical. Here’s a checklist of the questions you should ask, and answers that a reputable colo partner should give you.

Facilities matter
First, ask about the facilities themselves. Are they manned around the clock, or can you only get access during business hours? This has a big impact on security and your ability to make changes or fix problems. Are technical support staff are always available on-site, and available to you as part of your agreement?

For security, ask about CCTV throughout the facility. Are there locks at every entrance and exit? Are secure, individual locking cabinets provided, not shared cages? This helps prevent shared technical issues and theft.

Power is key, so can the provider offer fully redundant, generator-backed power? Ask also about power available per server rack. Conventional wisdom is for 2kW per rack—advice which is now outdated. Look for a minimum 5kW per rack, enabling more servers to be supported in the same footprint. Power needs will inevitably grow, so plan for it.

Heat is the enemy of servers, so the ability to keep stable, low temperatures at all times across a growing number of servers is critical. Can the facility offer redundant, efficient cooling in each of its sections to handle cooling demands in any circumstance?

Making connections
Just as important as the facility itself are its connections and available bandwidth. Can the provider offer 100Mbps and Gigabit Ethernet uplink ports, so that data isn’t throttled at the server connections? Or dedicated fibre links for fully scalable data capacity and redundant high-speed links to other major international hubs and networks, avoiding single points of failure?

You need both capacity and resilience. With bandwidth demands growing constantly, ask about the provider’s migration path to the new 40/100GigE standard in its wide-area topology.

Relationships matter
Finally, it’s vital to choose a partner that you can happily interact with in the coming years. Standard business practices and due diligence apply: ask for reference accounts and contacts who can describe their experiences.

Colocation contracts often run for two or three-year periods, so ensure the facilities will support the business throughout the duration of the contract. You don’t want to be back to square one if the colo facility can’t meet your needs in 18 months’ time.

In conclusion, colocation means more than just a place to put your servers. With the right approach, you can ensure that the move to colo will help you achieve your business goals, not restrict them.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 17th May 2011 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2011

Once viewed in some quarters as a fringe movement and unreliable, open-source software is now a dominant force in the IT industry. It has been embraced by both the public and the private sectors and is being implemented across a wide variety of markets and applications such as social publishing and big data.

These are among the results of the fifth annual Future of Open Source Survey conducted by North Bridge Venture Partners in partnership with The 451 Group. More than 450 IT professionals took part in the survey with end users making up 60 percent of the respondents, who were asked about a wide range of issues that affect the open-source landscape. Most of those responding see an ever brighter future for open source.

Among the other findings:

• The open source community is now more focused on maturing technology concerns, including improved operational excellence around areas such as support, product management, feature functionality and return on investment, as opposed to earlier concerns around the legal implications of licensing and conforming to internal policies.
• Respondents identified software as a service (SaaS), cloud and mobile computing as the main areas that can have a dramatic impact on open source and a virtually untapped opportunity for growth.
• More than half—56 percent—of respondents believe that more than half of software purchases made in the next five years will be open source.
• An overwhelming 95 percent of respondents noted that a turbulent economy continues to be “good” for open source software, though for the first year ever, lower cost has been overtaken by freedom from vendor lock-in as what makes open-source software more attractive.
• When asked about revenue generating strategies likely to create value for vendors, 56 percent of the respondents said that an annual, repeatable support and service agreement was the most likely.

The survey results were released during the opening panel at Computerworld’s OSBC conference which featured open source industry leaders: Jim Whitehurst, President and CEO, Red Hat; Mike Olson, CEO, Cloudera; Adrian Kunzle, Managing Director, Head of Firmwide Engineering and Architecture, JPMorgan Chase; Tom Erickson, CEO, Acquia; and was chaired by Michael Skok, General Partner, North Bridge Venture Partners.

By: Philip Howard, Research Director - Data Management, Bloor Research Posted: 16th February 2011 Copyright Bloor Research © 2011

Kognitio was hoping that the release of its Pablo product would be the highlight of the first day at the TDWI conference in Las Vegas. However, it was eclipsed by the announcement that HP is to acquire Vertica.

It is important, in such instances, to get one’s priorities right, so I will begin with Pablo. Put simply, Pablo is an extension to WX2 that allows you to build very large (multi-terabyte) OLAP cubes, in memory, without physically instantiating those cubes. This is a big advantage: it can often take hours to (re)build a cube and many companies have dozens, hundreds and even thousands of cubes, all of which makes the whole environment unresponsive and unwieldy. Using WX2 should make a lot of this pain go away. The cubes generated by WX2 support MDX so you can use Excel or any other MDX compliant tool to manipulate the data. What will be interesting to watch is how Kognitio’s marketing changes to support Pablo: data marts and complex analytics are typically sold to very different people from the ones who buy cubes and slice-and-dice.

So, what about HP and Vertica? Having failed miserably with NeoView HP has announced that it is to acquire Vertica. From a Vertica perspective this explains why the company has been so uncommunicative over the last six to nine months and also why it has gone through three marketing managers in the same period. However, it does appear to have been continuing to grow its customer base at a significant rate, with something like 300 in all, which would put it second only to Netezza (IBM) in terms of new boy success rates.

The big difference between Netezza and Vertica, of course, is that IBM has a track record of successfully selling into the database market and HP doesn’t. And when I say this I am not just talking about NeoView: look at Allbase, for example, which once upon a time was a pretty decent database.

I have to say that I am not sanguine about this. It is likely that a significant proportion of Vertica’s staff will not like the big company environment offered by HP (no reflection on HP here, the same would apply to IBM, Oracle or whoever) and will leave. HP needs to retain key development staff as well as experienced salespeople. Frankly, I would leave Vertica alone for 18 months, much as IBM will do with Netezza. This would give time for HP’s existing sales force to work out the distinction between HP’s partnership with Microsoft and all those recently announced appliances on the one hand, and Vertica on the other. You could, of course, position Vertica to support in-database analytics (an analytics platform—the terminology that seems to be all rage) and leave the Microsoft appliances for enterprise data warehousing and OLAP but I wonder how many HP salespeople (outside of the NeoView group at any rate) really understand the distinction between these.

Of course, HP’s new CEO is a software man. But HP is like a tanker: it takes a long time to turn. Whether Leo can manage that remains to be seen. The success or failure of Vertica will be a key performance indicator.

By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 11th February 2011 Copyright Quocirca © 2011

Few can have failed to notice the business and consumer appetite for mobile devices; first laptops, PDAs and mobile phones, then netbooks, smartphones and now tablets—lots of them. Mobile networks have proliferated further boosting the appeal; cellular with relatively ubiquitous mobile data at reasonable cost and cheap, higher speed Wi-Fi at home, the office and, increasingly, in public places.

But as it is difficult to use more than one device at a time, where are all these mobile devices going to be used? They are all portable, but each carries a weight, space and power commitment. There is also a cost and a need for network contracts and ultimately a limit on the number of devices that any one person needs.

There are some who, especially in affluent markets, or technology-oriented job roles (anyone in tech, comms or media industries) will want to carry a multiplicity of laptops, tablets, smartphone and perhaps also have an enterprise-provided ‘dumb’ phone and a desktop computer, but is that a reality for every employee? No. Not only could the business not afford to buy them all, it couldn’t afford to run them all either.

For many with allocated desks at work, the laptop is already cannibalising the need and budget for a desktop computer. The desktop replacement laptop might still be a large and cumbersome beast for many, but it is portable, allowing employees to use it at home or while travelling, and it gives the business an opportunity to consider hot-desking, workplace flexibility and other premise space reduction strategies.

Similarly the need for a fixed phone for all is being undermined on two fronts; soft phones running voice over IP (VoIP) on a variety of computers and the ubiquitous mobile phone. But, while VoIP telephony is still typically integrated into the corporate PBX, according to Quocirca research most businesses are only just starting to get mobile phones to work like extensions on the corporate phone network, so more work is necessary for mobiles to completely replace fixed handsets.

For each element, the organisation is looking to consolidate to reduce costs and make processes streamlined and simpler for the employee to get them to be more productive, while building flexibility to fit with changing working practices. At the same time, employees as consumers have become much more aware of what technology is available, and what they prefer to use, so enterprises are having to deal with an influx of consumer devices into their IT and communications systems.

Every device that is introduced carries a cost and brings complexity, and while businesses will increasingly allow employees to self-chose (BYOD—bring your own device), neither party is likely to want employees to have one of everything—smartphone, simple mobile, laptop, netbook, tablet. So as new devices appear, many will eventually substitute older ones as the constraints of earlier generations of technology are lifted and working styles change to take advantage of new opportunities.

So with tablets like Apple’s iPad appearing to be suddenly taking both business and consumer worlds by storm, and ultimately a limit on budgets, desks or shoulders to carry portables—what exactly are they going to replace?

Some may see the current crop of tablets as having the same limited degree of success that the first generation of devices called tablet PCs (in reality they were typically laptops without keyboards) enjoyed, but something has changed.

Sure the technology is better; communications networks have improved, the devices are lighter, have far longer battery life and brighter screens. However, the main changes are in the way the devices are used.

The user experience has improved dramatically, with sensors for orientation and movement, and touch screens that are suitable for simple typing as well as complex on-screen interaction and gestures. Through the success of the app store model, thousands of flowers have bloomed with a rich ecosystem of applications, allowing users to simply pick a portfolio of options that meet their needs.

Despite being personal and absorbing to the individual, today’s tablets are also easy to share, to show something to a colleague or customer without the technology appearing to dominate or intimidate. It might not be the best form factor for content creation, where power, keyboards and other input devices are required, but it is ideal for consumption and collaboration. This fits the business IT needs of many roles in many organisations for much of their working time—as well as meeting many leisure needs.

So are the current generation of tablets a threat to the laptop and desktop PC?

There are parallels with the workstation versus PC argument of the late 80s and early 90s—only a small percentage of the workforce ever really needed the power of the workstation, most simply needed the access to information and a bit of manipulation delivered by a PC.  Now as employees are liberated from their desks, do many really need to take anything more than a tablet for access to IT services? Probably not, so laptop and desktop deployments will be affected.

Enterprises might ask the next question—do employees need a smartphone in addition to the tablet, or will a smaller pocket-able communicator suffice? It could be that Star Trek had it right all along—communicator for voice plus tricorder for data—but Quocirca believes that most individuals who have become used to their power will probably ‘cling on’ to their smartphones.

However, tablets and their cannibalisation effect on both desktops and laptops, are another matter. They are fundamentally changing our relationship with technology, and their impact will persist long after the hype from the current frenzy of product releases has died down.

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 3rd February 2011 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2011

Next week's The Open Group conference in San Diego comes at an important time in the evolution of IT and business. And it's not too late to attend the conference, especially if you're looking for an escape from the snow and ice.

From Feb. 7 through 9 at the Marriott San Diego Mission Valley, the 2011 conference is organized around three key themes: architecting cyber security, enterprise architecture (EA) and business transformation, and the business and financial impact of cloud computing. CloudCamp San Diego will be held in conjunction with the conference on Wednesday, Feb. 9. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

The Open Group is a vendor- and technology-neutral consortium, whose vision of Boundaryless Information Flow™ will enable access to integrated information within and between enterprises based on open standards and global interoperability.

I've found these conferences over the past five years an invaluable venue for meeting and collaborating with CIOs, enterprise architects, standards stewards and thought leaders on enterprise issues. It's one of the few times when the mix of technology, governance and business interests mingle well for mutual benefit.

The Security Practitioners Conference, being held on Feb. 7, provides guidelines on how to build trusted solutions; take into account government and legal considerations; and connects architecture and information security management. Confirmed speakers include James Stikeleather, chief innovation officer, Dell Services; Bruce McConnell, cybersecurity counselor, National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Ben Calloni, Lockheed Martin Fellow, Software Security, Lockheed Martin Corp.

Change management processes requiring an advanced, dynamic and resilient EA structure will be discussed in detail during The Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference on Feb. 8. The Cloud Computing track, on Feb. 9, includes sessions on the business and financial impact of cloud computing; cloud security; and how to architect for the cloud -- with confirmed speakers Steve Else, CEO, EA Principals; Pete Joodi, distinguished engineer, IBM; and Paul Simmonds, security consultant, the Jericho Forum.

General conference keynote presentation speakers include Dawn Meyerriecks, assistant director of National Intelligence for Acquisition, Technology and Facilities, Office of the Director of National Intelligence; David Mihelcic, CTO, the U.S. Defense Information Systems Agency; and Jeff Scott, senior analyst, Forrester Research.

I'll be moderating an on-stage panel on Wednesday on the considerations that must be made when choosing a cloud solution—custom or "shrink-wrapped"—and whether different forms of cloud computing are appropriate for different industry sectors. The tension between plain cloud offerings and enterprise demands for customization is bound to build, and we'll work to find a better path to resolution.

I'll also be hosting and producing a set of BriefingsDirect podcasts at the conference, on such topics as the future of EA groups, EA maturity and future roles, security risk management, and on the new Trusted Technology Forum (TTF) established in December. Look for those podcasts, blog summaries and transcripts here over the next few days and weeks.

For the first time, The Open Group Photo Contest will encourage the members and attendees to socialize, collaborate and share during Open Group conferences, as well as document and share their favorite experiences. Categories include best photo on the conference floor, best photo of San Diego, and best photo of the conference outing (dinner aboard the USS Midway in San Diego Harbor). The winner of each category will receive a $100 Amazon gift card. The winners will be announced on Monday, Feb. 14 via social media communities.

It's not too late to join in, or to plan to look for the events and presentations online. Registration is open to both members and non-members of The Open Group. For more information, or to register for the conference in San Diego please visit: http://www.opengroup.org/sandiego2011/register.htm. Registration is free for members of the press and industry analysts.

By: Rob Bamforth, Principal Analyst, Quocirca Posted: 27th January 2011 Copyright Quocirca © 2011

Every year or two, M2M (machine to machine), based applications rise up the media agenda and a new age of super connected applications appears to dawn. They run along the lines of vending machines that dial in to say they’re feeling sick and in need of a service engineer, smart fridges that broadcast they are running low on milk, or a vehicle complaining that its wheels are about to fall off.

The ideas generally go down well in a world that is starting to believe that Sci-fi and fantasy tales, films and TV series might be true, but for someone brought up on the yet unachieved images of a 21st century future projected by Tomorrow’s World and Popular Mechanics, it is clear that in reality we have a long way to go, even if the vision is worthwhile.

The problem is that the most worthy and achievable M2M applications are not sexy, big news or actually easy to achieve, especially in a world more focussed on more social aspects of communications as ‘friends’ instantly tweet messages to each other (and everyone else).

Several technology advances have made M2M applications possible. These include the ability to make low cost, tiny footprint communications hardware using a variety of connection options—Bluetooth, Wi-Fi or cellular—to fit into pretty much any type of device. Processing power, likewise, has also continued along a Moore’s Law path of doubling the number of transistors in a given area every 12–18 months, leading to a doubling of CPU power for a given size, or a halving of size for a given power requirement. The amount of information that can be stored in memory or transmitted through networks has likewise soared, and even battery power has improved (although nowhere near the same levels as other technologies).

So why does M2M seem to struggle to deliver on over-inflated expectations?

Despite some adoption of software platforms designed to support M2M deployments, there are still issues with technical inconsistencies, some related to mobile operators. Coverage has historically been based around population centres, places of work and travel routes, and makes assumptions about belonging to one region and only occasionally ‘roaming’ to other ones. M2M requires broader coverage and a more consistent view of tariffs independent of location so that applications are not arbitrarily constrained by geography.

There are also challenges associated with the speed of change in mobile networks and their underlying technologies, and this will become evident again as they evolve to fourth generation wireless networks. While the industry generally embraces rigorous standards to ensure core interoperability, there have been problems, especially as communications needs have headed ‘up the stack’ away from basic ‘plumbing’ towards integrated applications. The early experiences of the multimedia messaging service (MMS) were good examples of mobile application interoperability issues. M2M projects also expect technology to remain consistent and interoperable over a much longer timeframe than the short term upgrade and replace consumer mentality.

The business case for M2M is also challenging. Successful projects with significant impact are likely to be wide ranging and realised over a longer term than many in decision making roles can justify. No longer is it sufficient for a manager to deliver a return on investment on their ‘watch’ (ie before changing roles), they may also need to deliver on objectives inside a much shorter timeframe. Commercially worthwhile M2M solutions are more likely to be more evenly spread over multiple areas or aspects of a business.

However M2M also suffers a similar challenge to Unified Communications (UC), in that despite all the convergence of technologies and standards in the transport and ‘plumbing’ and some coming together in the infrastructure services layer, the end points do not talk nicely. For UC it is a matter of encouraging people to collaborate and trying to get business organisations and processes to support working together when too often they are ‘fighting corners’, sitting in silos and building empires. For M2M the end components are not so wilfully uncommunicative, but interoperability at the application and services level remains a real challenge. Thanks to standards, ‘things’ can talk internet protocols over Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and cellular networks, but what should they really say to each other?

There have been many attempts at trying to get hardware and software objects to talk intelligently over networks over the last couple of decades—from object request brokers to the Java-inspired Jini. But none have really gained sufficient traction across what is a diverse community of consumer electronics and industrial hardware manufacturers, or IT and software companies.

UC’s basic entry point into providing a linkage at the people and process level is the ‘buddy’ orientation of presence. The idea being that if individuals can see the status of their colleagues, they might communicate more effectively with them. It is a start, but needs more encouragement to fit effectively with the way corporate processes work. However, with social media now becoming a major force in the consumer world, the more sophisticated social models of friends, followers, ad hoc publishers and subscribers are looking very promising for building communities for collaboration for business.

A similar process could take place in M2M. Not so much a Facebook, but an ‘Interface-book’. Machines might not need to make friends, but they do need to prod, poke, understand, tweet, lead and follow each other. M2M needs more volume and momentum and needs to solve the integration and interoperability hurdles to grow beyond technically quite interesting into a major business transformer for commercial gain.

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

Barcelona -- Welcome to a special BriefingsDirect podcast from the HP Software Universe 2010 Conference in Barcelona, an interview with Kevin Bury, Vice President and General Manager, and Neil Ashizawa, Manager of Products, both with HP Software as a Service.

We were at Software Universe in early December to explore some major enterprise software and solutions, trends and innovations, making news across HP’s ecosystem of customers, partners, and developers. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

This discussion, with two executives from HP, focuses on the software as a service (SaaS) market and how it and cloud computing are reshaping the future of IT.

Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, moderated the discussion just after the roll-out of HP’s big application lifecycle management (ALM) news, the release of ALM 11.

Here are some excerpts on the future of SaaS discussion:

Bury: We are seeing a lot of interest in the market today for SaaS and cloud. I think it’s an extension of what we've seen over the last decade, of companies looking at ways that they can drive the most efficiency from their IT budgets. And as they are faced especially in these trying economics times of trying to do as much as they can, they're looking for ways to optimize on their investment.

When you look at what they are doing with SaaS, it gives them the ability to outsource applications, take advantage of the cloud, take advantage of web technologies to be able to deliver those software solutions to their customers or constituents inside of the business, and do it in a way where they can drive speed to value very, very quickly.

They can take advantage of getting more bang for their buck, because they don’t have to have their people focused on those initiatives internally and they're able to do it in a financial model that gives them tremendous value, because they can treat it as an operating expense as opposed to a capital expense. So, as we look to the interest of our customers, we're seeing a lot more interest in, "HP, help us understand what is available as a service."

Various components then include SaaS, infrastructure as a service (IaaS), certainly platform as a service (PaaS), with the ultimate goal of moving more and more into the cloud. SaaS is a stepping stone to get there, and today about half of all of the cloud types of solutions start with SaaS.

Where is this thing going? When is it going to end? Is it going to end? I don’t believe it is. I think it’s an ongoing continuum. It’s really an evolution of what services their constituents are trying to consume, and the business is responding by looking for different alternatives to provide those solutions.

For example, if you look at where SaaS got started, it got started because business departments were frustrated, because IT wasn’t responsive enough. They went off and they made decisions to start consuming application service provider (ASP) source solutions, and they implemented them very, very quickly. At first, IT was unaware of this.

Now, as IT has become more aware of this, they recognize that their business users are expecting more. So, they're saying, "Okay, we need to not only embrace it, but we need to bring it in-house, figure out how we can work with them to ensure that we are still driving standardization, and we're still addressing all of the compliance and security issues."

Corporate data is absolutely the most valuable asset that most companies have, and so they have seen now that they have to embrace it. But, as they look down the road, it moves from just SaaS into now looking at a hybrid model, where they're going to embrace IaaS and Platform as a Service, which really formed the foundation of what the cloud is and what we can see of it today. But, it will continue to evolve, mature, and offer new things that we don’t even know about yet.

Ashizawa: About a year, year-and-a-half ago, people were still trying to get their minds wrapped around this idea of cloud. We're at a stage now where a lot of organizations are actually adopting the cloud as a sourcing strategy or they are building other strategies to adopt it. We're probably past early adopter and more into mainstream. I anticipate it will continue to grow and gain momentum.

Now, IT is becoming much more involved. I would say that they are actually becoming more of a broker. Before, when it came to providing services to drive business, they were more focused on build. Now, with this cloud they're acting in a role as a broker, as Kevin said, so that they can build the business benefits of the cloud.

One of the key differentiators, as it’s evolved, in the way I see it, is really in the economic principles behind cloud versus managed service and ASP. With cloud, as Kevin mentioned earlier, you basically leverage your operation expense budgets and reduce that capitalization that typically you would still need to do in a historic ASP or managed service.

Cloud brings to the table a very compelling economic business model that is very important to large organizations.

But if they are going to adopt the SaaS solution, that they vet out the integration possibilities—to get out in front that. Also, integration doesn’t just stop at the technical level. There are also the business aspects of integration as well. You need to also make sure that the service levels are going to be what your business users' desire and that you can enforce, and also integration from the support model.

If the user needs help, what’s the escalation? What’s the communication point? Who is the person who is actually going to help them, given the fact that now there is a cloud vendor in the mix, as well as the cloud consumer.

Bury: Organizations can become overwhelmed by the promise and the hype of cloud and what it can offer. My recommendation is usually to start with something small. I go out and spend a lot of time talking to our customers and prospective customers. There are a couple of very common bits of feedback that I hear that CXOs are looking at, when they view where to start with a cloud or as a service type of initiative.

The first of these is, is it core to my business? If a business process is absolutely core to what they are doing, it’s probably not a great place to start. However, if it’s not core, if it’s something that is ancillary or complimentary to that, it’s something that may make some sense to look at outsourcing, or moving to the cloud.

The second is if it’s mission-critical or not. If it’s mission-critical and it’s core, that’s something you want to have your scarce resource, your very highly valued IT resources working on, because that’s what ultimately drives the business value of IT. Going back to what Neil said earlier, IT is becoming a broker. They only have so much bandwidth that they can deliver to those solutions and offerings to their customers. So, if it’s not core and it’s not critical, those are good candidates.

We recommend starting small. Certainly, IT needs to be very involved with that. Then, as you get more-and-more comfortable and you’re seeing more value, you can continue to expand. In addition, we see projects that make a lot of sense, things like testing as a service, where the IT organizations can leverage technology that’s available through their partners, but deliver via a cloud or a SaaS solution, as opposed to bringing it in-house.

We see SaaS as one of the key drivers, one of the strategic initiatives for HP to embrace. As I talk with my peers on the leadership team, we recognize SaaS as one of only two consumption models customers have for obtaining software from HP. In the traditional license play, they can consume the license and pay maintenance or, if they want to treat it as an operating expense, it will be via the SaaS model.

As we look to what we need to do, we're investing very heavily in making all of our applications SaaS ready, so that customers can stand them up in their own data center and our data center or via a hybrid, where we may involve either a combination of those or even include a third-party.

For example, they may have a managed service provider that is providing some of the testing services. To your point earlier about the integration, HP, because of our breadth and our depth of our applications, can provide the ability to integrate that three-way type of solution whereas other companies don’t have that type of depth to be able to pull that off.

As SaaS now becomes much more mainstream and much more mature, big customers are now looking to companies like HP, because of the fact that we have the size, the depth, and the breadth of the solutions.

They're looking for that relationship that is going to transcend this solution and is going to be part of the overall relationship between HP and their organization over the long haul. So, size definitely matters when it comes to cloud and SaaS.

The thing that’s important to note here is that this is an evolution or a maturation. It’s interesting, having been in this phase for so long, to see what customers are now looking at. And it’s something where, as I start to look out to the future and speculate about where they want to go next, I'm seeing a lot of indications toward a model where customers will want to consume this idea of everything as a service. We’ve even seen recently customers say, "You're already doing this for us," whatever that as-a-service solution might be.

"Can you also take some of our people, put them back into that, and then just charge us that monthly or annual fee?" Neil and I spent a lot of time contemplating this idea of business process as a service. That’s what we're speculating could be a next generation of SaaS or cloud. It’s the idea of customers who wanted to consume business processes as service, which is just another step toward consuming everything as a service.

How will companies in the future really be able to deliver on the promise of what is and what we are recognizing as the Instant-On type of enterprise? It’s the ability to take in data very, very quickly and then be able to analyze it, make assessments on it, make decisions and to be, in the term you use, very agile in the way that they are reacting to these inputs.

I mentioned earlier this movement toward those applications or those areas of the business that are not core and critical that they are looking to move outside of their data center. So that’s certainly something, when we look at things like complementing what IT does around things like testing as a service. Security as a service is a big area that we are seeing growth in. Project portfolio management (PPM), helping those IT organizations manage their business, the day-to-day business, are some of the areas that we are seeing a lot of growth.

In the past, companies generally have been very siloed. Information would come in and they didn’t have the access nor the visibility into it from another division or another department. When you look at what the instant-on enterprise is going to, it’s the ability to consume information very, very quickly, analyze it, then make decisions, and make directional changes to what’s going on inside of their environment.

As-a-service and cloud are very much enablers of that, because it gives you the ability to take advantage of technology as an enabler, as opposed to the past when they were just to serve one solution or one business process in the past. Now, they're able to have that stratify the entire organization. So, they have the insight and the agility to make real-time types of decisions.

The key is to get engaged early, learn as much as you can about the cloud and about as a service, and then look to companies like HP that have the experience in doing this. We’ve been doing it for more than 10 years. We’ve got a lot of success stories that we can point to on how we can help companies take advantage of the cloud and also what to avoid when you move into the cloud.

The single most important thing is not to go into it with expectations, any preconceived expectations that it’s going to be nirvana, or that it’s going to be easy. Moving a difficult business process from in house to out of house, right into the cloud, doesn’t mean that the problem goes away or that the challenges go away from it. You still need to approach it with discipline, rigor, and formal types of processes and methodologies, which is what IT is really good at.

Ashizawa: You really want to look for trust. If you are going to be outsourcing business processes to a vendor, you really want to have that trust. What we're seeing is that there is a strong linkage between your compliance levels that you have in your organizations and the trust that your cloud vendor can also provide you a solution that can help you maintain your compliance and standards.

So, at the end of the day, you really want to just make sure that you go into this with a trusted vendor that has a proven experience, that can really make sure that they understand your need and your requirements, and they have a SaaS solution that can really fit your organization.

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

By: Philip Howard, Research Director - Data Management, Bloor Research Posted: 15th December 2010 Copyright Bloor Research © 2010

Mark Smith, the CEO of Ventana Research, writing for Information Management on the 8th of December, has a detailed article about HP in which he states that “the company has decided to leave the BI market, which includes analytics and data warehousing software. It will do this by shutting down its marketing, sales and product efforts with HP Neoview and related technologies.”

While I am not aware of any formal announcement to this affect I have no reason to doubt Mark’s comments. Indeed, I have to say that I am not surprised. The signs were not encouraging from the beginning. For example, I was asked by an HP executive before the launch of Neoview whether I thought the product should be in the hardware (disk drives) division! I think that reflects HP’s long term attitude towards software and, while there is lots of hardware in a data warehouse (whether it is an appliance or not) it is ultimately a software product.

I was similarly consulted as to who HP should think about partnering with for Neoview. I suggested that SAS might be one such company. The executives I was discussing this with agreed that that might be a good idea. And SPSS (now IBM) I suggested. The response to this was: who? Now you have to applaud HP for recognising its shortcomings and asking for help in a field where they were clearly not experts but you would have thought that they might be a little more educated than that.

So, the signs were not good from the beginning. And then there was the product itself. This was hugely over-engineered for fault tolerance and not enough for performance. In particular, using a fabric-switched architecture for connecting to disk, as opposed to direct attached storage, showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic requirement for data warehousing, which is performance. 

What’s more I happen to know that HP licensed a data warehouse from another vendor (that will remain nameless) in order to do benchmarks against its product. According to that other supplier it was beating Neoview hands down. Of course, they would say that. But I was always inclined to believe them if perhaps not in such generous terms.

This is not to say that there aren’t or weren’t some very good features in Neoview but then the company also had a marketing problem. Namely, that it couldn’t decide who it was competing with. It started out talking about competing with Netezza (now IBM) but it soon became apparent that it couldn’t compete with Netezza on either price or performance so it switched its target to Teradata: thinking that it could match it for performance and beat it on price. But it couldn’t do the former and failed to recognise that Teradata itself was being forced to react to the emergence of Netezza, Vertica, Greenplum (now EMC) et al with improved ease of use, price-performance and so on, so Neoview failed there also. As a result its run rate for acquiring customers was pitiful.

I am not the first to say this but HP’s philosophy has always been that software is a way to sell more tin—and if you’re focused on tin then it should come as no surprise when you become a graveyard for any software businesses you acquire. So, if this is the death knell for Neoview I cannot pretend to be surprised. Still, I have been saying for some time that there are too many vendors in the market. There are still too many but at least there is apparently one less.

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

Barcelona: Welcome to a special BriefingsDirect podcast series coming to you from the HP SoftwareUniverse 2010 Conference in Barcelona.

We're here in the week of November 29, 2010 to explore some major enterprise software and solutions, trends and innovations making news across HP’s ecosystem of customers, partners, and developers.

This customer case-study from the conference focuses on Enel Green Power and how this Italian utility business has benefited from improved management of core business processes and gained visibility into new energy projects, also adhering to compliance through better planning and the ability to scope out new projects comprehensively. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

To learn about Enel Green Power’s innovative use of project and portfolio management (PPM), I interviewed Massimo Ferriani, CIO of Enel Green Power in Rome.

Here are some excerpts:

Ferriani: Enel Green Power is one of the leaders in the renewables market ... We're in all the most mature technologies such as hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar.

If you think about a matrix to cross technologies and countries, we have a lot of trouble, because we operate four technologies in 16 countries.

It's difficult because we have more than 300 plants all around the world. So, it's an asset portfolio that we have to operate, and we have to reduce the risks.

When we decided to deploy IT platforms, we didn’t think that it was a good idea to deploy conventional-generation IT platforms, but to build up new platforms more fitted to renewables' needs.

We thought about the main objective in deploying these platforms and said, "Okay, maybe we have to deploy platforms that permit us to minimize the portfolio risk, in order to know exactly what production should be." For us, knowing the production is a condition.

We have to know production, and we have to know exactly the production that we're promising to sell to the market.

The business strategy is to manage centrally and operate locally. IT had to follow the strategy. Our main IT platforms are developed with the objective to be global. Global doesn’t mean managing everything centralized, but to manage the IT platform as centralized, because it's better for synergies and in terms of costs. But, because we have to fit local needs, we have to localize these platforms in 16 countries.

For PPM, as well, we decided to have a global, centralized, unique platform, in order to gather and collect all the data that we get from the field. This is one of the problems that we frequently have because, in effect, the operation is located everywhere. And, it’s not easy to collect information from each field operation.

We have lot of plants in the middle of nowhere—in the middle of the Nevada desert and in the middle of the Mato Grosso in Brazil. We have to gather information from these plants. So, it’s important to have global IT platforms, because one of our main objectives is that all our people have to work in the same way.

It’s also important to set the main goal of the PPM solution. Now, the PPM solution lets Enel Green Power manage its own worldwide portfolio initiatives, both business development side and the plant construction Phase 2, because we have to remember that the business development hands over the construction of the project.

We have to do it through building a unique centralized integrated platform, valuable to all the countries, designed to certify the market value of the pipeline and the potential future production related to that pipeline. For us, it's absolutely important to forecast better, to make budgets, and so on. It had to be designed to support people, our colleagues, in activities like planning, project development, reporting, document management, and so on.

Setting the main goals
So when we decided to deploy this platform, we had a lot of work for a couple of reasons.

First of all, because we wanted to develop an integrated in-house platform in order to map the core processes of the project, and at the same time to implement algorithms to develop a portfolio evaluation.

The second was to investigate adopting a standard solution available on the market that allowed us, with little customization, to fit the need of the business. It's important to underline that, when we started this project, it was the end of May, 2010. We already knew we were going to have an IPO. We didn’t know the time exactly, but we had to be ready for the end of October, the estimated date of the IPO.

We adopted the HP solution, because the HP people convinced us that with a minimal set of customization we would be ready for the end of October—and we did it.

We chose HP because of the strong automation in the collection of the data. As I said before, also important for us were simplicity and flexibility. Also, with reference to our geographical distribution everywhere, the adoption of a solution supported with global support was another constraint and was absolutely important.

We needed a standard technology accessible from a lot of countries and with integration with other applications that we have, for example Microsoft Project. We also required scalability and platform growth—and HP has a strength on this point—because we are adopting a web service architecture. And, we wanted the viability of a unique homogenous view of mandating KPIs.

We're only in the first phase in order to support the IPO and to support the certification of the market value of the pipeline. But, the main benefits of this platform for the business are acquisition and centralization of the data.

For us, the flexibility was maybe one of the three main strengths on this platform and the reasons we chose HP. But, the best one, as I said before, was the minimum customization we needed in order to fit the first phase. It’s not easy to have only three months time to set 64 workflows, because the local business development wants to fit their workflow on these needs.

It’s important for the automation to monitor all the steps of the workflow, of the individual steps of the process, to manage the workflow authorization of the individual steps, and monitor progress of the individual steps. All these data have to support us in order to plan the strategy. So, there are plenty of benefits and maybe more benefits in the future with the evolution of this platform.

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

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

The latest BriefingsDirect podcast discussion examines a new book on application lifecycle management (ALM) best practices, one that offers new methods and insights for dramatic business services delivery improvement.

The topic of ALM will be a big one at this week's HP Software Universe conference in Barcelona. In anticipation, join us as we explore application lifecycle management (ALM) best practices for overall business services delivery improvement.

In this discussion, the last in a series of three, we underscore the conclusions from the forthcoming book and explain how organizations can begin now to change how they deliver and maintain applications in a fast-changing world.

Complexity, silos of technology and culture, and a shifting landscape of application delivery options have all conspired to reduce the effectiveness of traditional applications approaches. In the forthcoming book, called The Applications Handbook: A Guide to Mastering the Modern Application Lifecycle, the authors evaluate the role and impact of automation and management over an application's lifecycle, as well as delve into the need to gain better control over applications through a holistic governance perspective.

In our first podcast, we focused on the role and impact of automation and management of applications, and emphasized the need to gain control over applications through a holistic lifecycle perspective.

The second discussion in the series looked at how an enterprise, Delta Air Lines, moved successfully to improve its applications’ quality, and gain the ability to deliver better business results from those applications.

Finally, we're here now with the book’s authors to explore their conclusions. Please join me in welcoming Mark Sarbiewski, Vice President of Marketing for HP Applications, and Brad Hipps, Senior Manager of Solution Marketing for HP Applications. The discussion is moderated by BriefingsDirect's Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Sarbiewski: The life of an application is generally the same for all companies. There is a spark of an idea: "We need this. We need software to help us do something in the business."

We make an investment decision somehow. We may do this ad hoc. We may do it based on who screams the loudest. But somehow a decision gets made. We build something somehow. We spec it, build it, release it, run it, poorly or not, and hopefully, although certainly not always, eventually we replace it, retire it, and so forth.

We wanted to take a slightly different approach to how we thought about maturity models. There are lots of them in the industry, not so much around ALM, but in sub-disciplines or in different areas. Our focus was the business outcomes that you see at different levels.

We built out a model for ALM maturity, and it’s in the book.

... We see pressure from the business to change how we do things and the technologies we use. From the business side, you see it in a variety of ways. You see, "Oh, it’s the consumerization of IT, and what I see in my consumer world I want in IT. I see this all moving fast and I don’t feel my business moving." You see that pressure.

But, you absolutely see pressure to change from the bottom-up, from the teams themselves. We want to work in a different way. We want to be able to execute faster. The whole move of agile has been, in large part, if not primarily built, then driven from development and delivery teams up. So, there is a huge motivation there.

If you can understand the results that you are seeing, that ought to help you figure out where you could be. What we've seen is a progression from the spectrum of companies, ... [many] have fairly immature processes.

We see people just getting started, and they have a relatively ad hoc, narrow, point tool, with lots of manual work. It doesn’t mean they are never successful, but results vary highly. They're very mixed. Some project teams are great, and it all depends on the project team, and the next one may stink.

So our idea around maturity—and tying it to outcomes—is the results that we see. ... It all comes back to the results. What kind of results am I seeing? If you look at the model in the book, it’s pretty easy to peg yourself as to where you are and the kinds of benefits you'd see from moving up that maturity curve.

There’s a lot of pride when you see the metrics go in the right way. The feedback that I've seen for our clients that do this really well is where the business comes back and says, "Oh, my God. The responsiveness is incredible. Even if I'm not getting the massive stuff that I used to get once every two years, I'm seeing movement on a regular basis, and I love it." And lot of clients that we talk to are really fired up about that.

What we hear from our clients is that things are hyper-competitive and that technology, in particular software and applications, is a huge competitive advantage. So, our ability to move fast and beat the competitors to the punch with capability is enormously important.

Hipps: We configured this model trying deliberately not to be ultra-prescriptive. There are many heavy-duty models that do exist, and people can dig into those to their heart’s content. This is as much a maturity scorecard as anything.

One of the examples that you might see or one of the ways you might begin to engage yourself is something like defect leakage. Defect leakage refers to the number of defects that you discover in live in the application that you could have caught earlier.

We have some figures that show that the average is in the neighborhood of 40 percent of application defects that leak into production and are discovered in live. They could have been caught earlier. It may be little higher than 40 percent, which is a fairly shocking number.

But on the high end, the world-class customers we worked with, see less than 5 percent of defects working their way into production. So right off the bat there, you're talking an 80 percent-plus drop in the number of defects that you're experiencing in a live environment, with all the attendant cost savings, brand improvement, and good will in the business that you would expect.

That’s one example of the kind of thing that you can look at, tease out, and begin to get a sense of where might I sit maturity wise. From that, you can potentially take a cue as to where is it that I want to start, where is it that I want to make the biggest investment, as I look to make myself more mature.

Speaking from the application domain, our friends in the agile communities have been the leading champions of this notion. Our default stand [as development teams] was one of being change-averse.

By that, I mean that there was this whole contractual relationship with business. You tell us what you need, and we're going to document it as best as we can, down to having all the semicolons in the right place.

"We're going to break out the quill pens and ink our signatures. Forever shall it be, and if you change anything here, we're going to hit you with the request for change, and it will go through a cycle of six weeks and maybe we'll agree to it," etc., etc. For the longest time that was the mindset. You can look at that and say it's awful, but when I had far fewer applications, and they took far longer to build, it was just the way of the world.

The recognition today for all of the reasons we've talked about in this podcast and others, our applications are everywhere. They're always on. There is nothing I can do in a business that isn't going to touch the application. It fundamentally means, we need to sweep from the table, that notion of being change-averse. Instead, we need to be in a position of embracing change. We do need to be change-ready.

As Mark said, we need to be architected and engineered, from our people process technology perspective, to put ourselves in a position to be that way. In the book, we talk a bit about some of the principles we think come into play for change-ready organizations. But, that's why it is one of the leading traits, the leading principles, in world-class organizations.

This could be a mantra of sorts: Think big, start small, scale quickly. The basic idea of think big is the idea that you want to spend some time making sure that you’ve all got a shared vision of where you want to be, and we talk a bit about whether that was a maturity model—these principles of predictability and repeatability, etc.

Hopefully we've set at least some suggested guidelines for constructing what your end state might look like. But, this point about thinking big is that, as we all know, certainly in IT but probably anywhere, it's every easy to fall into a state of analysis paralysis. We've got to figure out exactly the right metrics to decide exactly what we're going to be. We've got to figure out precisely what our time-line is.

We sort of can borrow from our friends in agile, who have said that you've got to understand the perimeter of what it is you want to accomplish, but still it's bound to change. Those perimeters are bound to shift. You're bound to discover things about yourselves, your organizations, what's feasible, and what's not in the process of actually trying to get there.

So, it's important to set yourself an objective and make sure it's a shared objective. It's just as critical to get going to not fall into a trap of endless planning and reconsideration of plans.

If you then pluck the low-hanging fruit, the easy things we could do starting this week, starting tomorrow, to advance us at least generally toward these ends, this end objective, that's great. Then, it becomes a matter of just continuing to move, scale, and adapt.

Somewhere, we make the point that, as an application team, certainly at least as an application member, I cared a lot more about measurable progress, seeing things actually advancing and getting better. Then, I cared less about how shiningly brilliant the end-state was going to be or exactly how we were going to get there.

Sarbiewski: I spent a number of years in a former life doing process change for companies. There were some trade secrets in the firm I worked with. They recognized some unchanging facts that that people can consciously or unconsciously sabotage the greatest plans, any process you want, or any kind of a change.

You have to start with people. It does involve all the people-process-technology in that order, but it's the people considerations. Do we have that shared vision? Who are the skeptics? Where do we think this could go wrong? Are we committed to getting there?

There were some questions we’d ask as we were embarking on making this change. First of all we said, what project or what pilot—if we did these changes on it—would people in the organization say, "If it works for that project, it will work for us as an organization."

So, find that visible pilot project, not one that’s an exception. Don’t find one where there are four developers and they are in the same room. If you try something new, people can say, "Well, of course, it worked for that, but that’s so atypical." So, find that project.

Beyond that, find the champion who is really respected in the organization, but skeptical of the change. We would go looking for one or two people who were open-minded enough to really give it a go, but maybe steeped in how we’ve done it, and have been very successful in how we’ve done it. Then, people can say, "That’s the kind of project we do, so you need to be able to make it work there. If Joe or Mary or whoever it is, if they buy into and it works for them, I believe."

Maybe, let's reward jointly the operations and the dev teams, if they’ve met those customer satisfaction goals, those service level agreements (SLAs), and those low counts of defects in production. You start to create a different dynamic, when you think more about lifecycle goals and cross-team goals.

Hipps: The spirit of this book, and probably the spirit of a lot of these kinds of books, ... If I have one hope, it’s that we haven’t been so pie-in-the-sky in our thinking that somebody reads this and says, "Yeah, nice idea, but it will never happen here."

So, that would be my hope—somebody takes one single way that’s implementable in the near-term within their organization.

Sarbiewski: What I’m hoping is that in these hundred or so odd pages that executives in these enterprises that we're talking to have that opportunity to take just a couple hours and have somebody give them a chance to think about how important software is, and what the true life of an application is.

Once you start to go down that path and you start to say, wait a minute, 10, 15 years of evolving this capability, what does that mean? When things are live and I’ve got hot request from the business to make a change, what needs to happen? How much money will I spend on that?

The one "aha" moment is seeing that the 12 to 15 years matter, when I’m delivering value to the business and innovating for the business. In order to be successful during those 10 to 15 years, I will make different decisions when I build this thing. I will focus on a process.

I will build the automation to a different level, because I’ve stopped thinking that my job is done when I go live. If that’s truly the job, you’ll make a lot of shortcut decisions to get to go live. But, if you think bigger, you think about the full life of an application and what it delivers to the business.

All of a sudden, it makes a whole lot more sense to do things a bit differently, to set myself up for 10 years or 15 years of success with the business, as opposed to a moment when I can say, "Yup, I achieved a milestone."

For more information on Application Lifecycle Management and how to gain an advantage from application modernization, please click here.

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: 30th November 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

The latest BriefingsDirect podcast discussion examines a new book on application lifecycle management (ALM) best practices, one that offers new methods and insights for dramatic business services delivery improvement.

The topic of ALM will be a big one at next week's HP Software Universe conference in Barcelona. In anticipation, join us as we explore a new book on application lifecycle management (ALM) best practices, one that offers some new methods for overall business services delivery improvement.

Complexity, silos of technology and culture, and a shifting landscape of application delivery options have all conspired to reduce the effectiveness of traditional applications approaches. In the forthcoming book, called The Applications Handbook: A Guide to Mastering the Modern Application Lifecycle, the authors evaluate the role and impact of automation and management over an application's lifecycle, as well as delve into the need to gain better control over applications through a holistic governance perspective to help head-off poor applications productivity.

This is the second (read more about and access the first podcast) in the series of three podcasts on the "Application Lifecycle Management" book. We're here with the authors, but we are also here to learn about how one enterprise, Delta Air Lines, has moved successfully to improve its applications’ quality and impact and to better deliver real business results from those applications.

So please join me now welcoming our panel, David Moses, Quality Assurance Manager for Delta’s eCommerce IT Group, and John Bell, Senior Test Engineer in the eCommerce IT Group at Delta; book co-author Mark Sarbiewski, Vice President of marketing for HP Applications, and co-author Brad Hipps, Senior Manager for Solution Marketing at HP Applications. The discussion is moderated by BriefingsDirect's Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Sarbiewski: The headline for me is that, more than ever, business moves as software moves; as your website moves, as your ERP system is advanced, your supply chain, and your financials.

Businesses are driven so much by software now that it's really the long pole in the tent. Standing up infrastructure is a necessity. Potentially, it can be done really fast. How quickly can I innovate on my capabilities for my customers or my internal users?

So, business moves as software moves. When we look at how we've done over the last 10 or 15 years, I could sum it by saying that legacy applications and approaches are just too slow. Not only are they too slow, they are too costly. They're riddled with security holes, which are increasing the challenges out there.

So, we have this dynamic that the business needs to move faster. Software is a prime driver in innovating for the business, and where we've been is simply too slow. We need to rethink our approach across the board, because there is no one silver bullet. It really boils down to I have to leverage the latest technologies for things like reuse, where I get huge leverage for richer customer experiences that need those wonderful new web application technologies that we have.

I have new processes that I can leverage in forms of agile and iterative types of things. To keep the cost in line. I really want to be able to leverage global teams for flexible low cost, but expert resources around the globe. I want them acting as if they were all local, like a dynamic Tiger Team that was all local.

That’s a lot of change to make happen to serve the ultimate business needs. We took the opportunity to take a step back and ask how all these things come together and how you can blend this modern approach to really deliver what you need to deliver for the business.

Hipps: This is a chance to take a step back and have a bit of brain space to consider and contemplate a lot of things Mark just touched on—what are these ramifications for my organization?

Nine times out of 10, most of us who are in IT developing applications, trying to get on top of what it is the business wants, don't generally have the luxury of taking a step back and asking has the ground shifted underneath my feet with regard to all the things I am now expected to do and the ways I am expected to do them, whether that’s process shifts, organizational shifts, or technology shifts.

Generally the case is that the ground has shifted. Am I equipped, organized, and oriented to respond effectively to all these changes? That’s one of the driving factors of the book and one of the hopes that gives people a chance to step back, contemplate what these changes have been, and also give a bit of guidance about how we might better get on top of these changes and really wring the benefit out of them that we had expected when we first began to make them.

Moses: The biggest thing that we have at Delta is to make sure that we innovate for our customers and give them the latest greatest ability to take control of their situation. If somebody wants to book a flight, they should be able to do it on any media they like.

We want them to be able to make it in as few clicks as possible and as little typing as possible. We really want to make it as convenient for the customer and through the entire experience from the inspiration, all the way to when they are back home. We want to deliver quality products to them.

That comes down to innovation and speed, because you can innovate for ever and never actually release the product. For us, getting it out the door is very, very important. Some of the things that we've heard already from Mark and Brad touch on the need to back away, get out the weeds, and look at your overall lifecycle to make sure that you can get that speed. A lot of times, if you're doing the status quo over and over again, you never realize how fast you can be. So, you raise your head up, look around, and try to make some big changes.

Complexity is always the enemy of speed and innovation, isn’t it? The idea is to make it as simple as possible by having one version of the truth. You really have to get to that point, a central repository of data, a central tool that everyone can use. We use Quality Center. We keep everything in that, requirements, tough cases, automation. We pull scripts and things from there for our test plans. We have one area with all that data, so all of our areas can come to that and pull that information.

Whenever somebody needs to start up a script or anything like that, they’ve got a library that they can pull from. They can bring it into their project. When they are done with their manual testing and they place their test plan back in the library, they can then take those pieces and immediately automate them.

Somebody once said they required a form to find out who they were going to, or what pieces they were going to automate. For us, if you have one version of the truth, you know when things are checked back in. You know when your test plan has been updated and your automation people can make that decision. So, it's about getting rid of all the clutter, reducing the complexity, having simple processes, getting rid of all the ones that don't matter, and just really streamlining.

Recently, we've brought in some of the mobile devices like the iPhone and some of those types of applications. In the past, a large number of our customers have always been using the .com form. Now, we're finding more and more users are going towards the mobile devices.

We wanted to make sure that a lot of the applications lifecycle testing we had done with the .com could also be used with the mobile. We were able to take automation and a lot of the test cases and type things we had used with .com and use it with mobile.

We did write automation associated with mobile and were also able to bring that back into Quality Center, running that via Quick Test Pro. Even though mobile was a newer area for us, we were able to get the speed to market up on that as soon as possible.

Also, we were able to leverage that and use some of those automated scripts. We run those on a daily basis against our production mobile environment. If something is wrong with that, we know early in the morning. We run these scripts early in the morning before we come in, and we can know right away if something is there.

So we were able to take the lifecycle information and the wins that we have got from the .com, and bring that into our mobile apps, and it's really helped us a lot. Our speed to market has significantly improved with that.

Bell: Another case would be our new homepage. We're sitting here at the end of 2010. About two months ago, we released a new, more streamlined homepage, a lot more innovative. A lot of people looked at that. We hid the logo during usability testing, and people were surprised to find out it was an airline website. They thought of us as one of the cool guys out there in the travel world.

We're getting much better in this area. By using all the feedback that we get from the customers, importing information in the Quality Center, tracking everything that we have in there, we were able to look at what we needed to make changes to. Once we released this, it was something that the customers were wanting, so it got a lot of good response.

... One of the things that’s really important to us is that we work with multiple vendors in multiple locations and with multiple time zones. It's important to make sure that all of them are using the same processes and that we're all using the overall tools. We use Quality Center personally to help organize a lot of the requirements and things like that in our testing efforts.

It's important that all of our vendors, whether it's in-house or people outside, are giving us the same processes and that we are able to leverage any of our automation or any of our business process testing or any of those tools, and that we can actually deliver high quality software quickly, can reduce our turnaround time, make sure that we're giving customers their best experience, and that we are getting our time to market in a timely manner.

Moses: It's truly huge. I mean if you look at Delta.com, it's the main revenue driver for the entire company. So it's our face to the world, and streamlining that process where people are making it better and making the customer experience better is our number one goal. We want to really give our customers what they want and make it easy for them, because we have a wide range of customers.

We have pleasure customers who travel with their families once or may be twice a year, sometimes even less, and then we have people who travel with us every week. So we have two very different types of audiences and we have to cater to both. We have to make it fast and enjoyable and we have to allow them to dream a little bit and be inspired by where they want to go.

It's one of the biggest things that we have on our plate with mobile. Mobile is the future. Everyone is going toward mobile devices and portable devices. You're seeing more and more iPhones, iPads, and Android devices out there in the world, especially when you walk through the airport. We don't like that it happens, but sometimes things are out of our control like weather. And, we are always safe, so these things impact our schedule.

Hipps: In the book, when we talk about the core lifecycle, historically the SDLC—we just call it the core lifecycle, so as not to get lost in alphabet soup. Within that we see traits among world-class organizations. There tend to be four traits that these world class organizations have mastered, and we list these traits as being change ready. They have a high degree of predictability, high degree of repeatability, and certainly their output is of high quality.

So those four: change readiness, predictability, repeatability and quality, tend to be abstracting some traits that we see across these great orgs. Those tend to be the key ones that really they are very effective at. David and John have talked about that we have got data points in each one of those, in some of the examples they have given.

A lot of this change readiness to a large degree is formed by the point that we made in the beginning in the podcast, which is that fundamentally everything that business wants to do is going to have some applications or set of applications behind it. There is going to be a dependency there.

The business is only as nimble as its applications are. That puts applications teams in a position where they are not holding the business off at arms length, and saying, "No, no, no, no, no, I can't do that. No, that will take months." That rigidity may be historically where we came from, when we had fewer applications. They changed less. They were much bigger, more monolithic, and brittle. That is not the world we live in today.

Today, change is the expectation. David and John have been talking about this code being a lead revenue generator and Delta.com being the lead source of revenue on the Delta side. It's a great example. Clearly, anything the business wants to do to advance its market presence is going to come through that application.

The fact that they have leveraged automation and asset reuse and taken the time to build requirements traceability are all tick marks you put against organizations that have configured themselves to be change ready. That means they have stripped out as much latency as possible, the time it takes to do impact analysis.

They can see pretty quickly what all the dependencies are as a new change comes across. That’s just speaking of the assessment. There is, of course, the execution, which depends on automation, asset reuse, and all the things they talked about. We probably covered four of those, but certainly the change readiness does stand out.

Moses: You have to have that one version of the truth. I would highly recommend getting that, the central tool that everyone can use and that you can put everything in.

Second, it’s about mindset and alignment to your goals. You have to have alignment to the customer. You still have to have department goals, but they should be aligned to what the customer needs.

A lot of times, you see a contradiction in goals between the business group and an IT group. Delivering what the IT group wants to do may not exactly get what the business wants. And if the business was focused on the customer and the IT groups are focused on how many projects they can get out, but doesn’t really matter what projects they are, then there's an issue.

So, you have to really align very closely between business and IT, so much so that if you even have something that is a huge impact to your company, you may want to wrap a special forces team or integrity team around that, and have that group be one. Business and IT all in one group—that way you completely eliminate the us-versus-them mentality. If you can’t do that, definitely make sure that you're aligned to the customer.

Bell: One thing to add to that is that, at first, it can be a little scary moving things in, like moving all your requirements into one area and getting all the test cases and things and even looking at automation.

Sometimes, you have to take a half step back in order to take a full step forward. With us, even as we were moving things and centralizing it, there could be a little pain point in doing that, but that pain point will more than pay off in the long run. A lot of the people who are holding on to the old methodologies and ways of doing business, are thinking, "We're going to have to take a step back to do this."

Whatever step you take in that direction and whatever pain point you take as you move forward, once you start getting the automations in place, once you get these tools in place, you’ll see that you can start moving faster and faster that any initial pain point you took. You're going to exponentially get that money back, plus your time, so quickly that you will be shocked.

Just look at the changing world that we live in. With Delta.com now, we live here in Atlanta. If you go over to the airport, you realize that our business is not just flying customers within the United States in English. We now have kiosks in six different languages, and you meet people from all over the world that are now using our products and our websites in everything from simple Chinese to French.

It’s important that we realize the global nature of what we are doing, and that our methodology and our IT departments have to align ourselves, so that we can move this quickly. Without the automation and without the centralized tools and things we would never be able to put out as much work as we currently do.

For more information on Application Lifecycle Management and how to gain an advantage from application modernization, please click here.

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: 23rd November 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

Three megatrends are shaping the next generation of successful businesses and governments. We're talking about pervasive mobile applications, highly responsive cloud-computing models, and knowledge-adept social collaboration.

Indeed, by the year 2020, The Economist newspaper predicts there will be two trillion devices connected to the Internet. And taking a look at where we are right now, McKinsey Quarterly reported in August that in 2010 some four billion people have cell phones, and 450 million have access to a full web experience.

Moreover, Jupiter Research reports that by 2014 there will be 130 million enterprise users involved with mobile cloud activities. Not only is access pervasive, but the amount of information available is also exploding. The Economist again reports that in 2005 mankind created 150 exabytes of digital data … and in 2010 we will create fully eight times more data.

These changes are at a pace they’ve never seen before as they address them and try to drive these into their business or government environments.

As these trends literally rearrange business ecosystems, a gap will surely emerge between the companies that master change -- and exploit enabling technologies -- and those that fall ever further behind.

For those that do step up to the challenge -- expect a relentless emphasis on rapidly recurring innovation to meet dynamic customer and citizen demands.

Our latest BriefingsDirect podcast therefore focuses on how these trends -- and rapidly evolving customer, citizen, and user expectations -- are newly impacting the enterprise. We also examine how technology advancements are making it possible to drive innovation to meet these new demands for instant gratification.

Please join HP executive Dave Shirk, Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing at HP Enterprise Business, as we explore how HP is working to make headway, so that the next few years bring about a generational opportunity -- and not a downward complexity spiral. The discussion is moderated by BriefingsDirect's Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Shirk: We're seeing a lot of shift going on in the marketplace right now. When we look at where consumers are driving business or where citizens are driving government, it's fundamentally changing the way they operate. We've seen three core things come out.

The business models are all starting to change the way in which people approach markets across the globe. That's having to really rethink the ways in which they've approached them versus traditional methods.

The second thing we see is this whole shift in mobile computing meeting cloud computing and the enterprise trying to figure out exactly how to take best advantage of that to create this competitive advantage. Then, the overall demographic piece weighs into that.

We've seen the rise of the millennials, as they're being referred to. All of these things are forcing business and government to stop and say, "You know what, if we're going to grow or we're going to create a service differentiation, we're really going to need to do things differently and we're going to have to do it way faster than we've ever done it before."

According to the Society for Engineers, you now have over 800,000 graduates in China, over 300,000 graduates in India, 100,000 some in Japan, etc. It's over the last 10 to 12 years that each of those graduation rates has occurred. They are part of the workforce now.

When they went through that process, they were always connected and they always were involved in a social network-based environment. They have a level of their lifestyle that is all tied to this always-connected environment. When you think about the ubiquitous computing that that has brought to them, as they enter the workforce, they are looking at things a lot differently than ever before.

They bring new ideas. They bring new ways to that. They're looking for businesses that will support that kind of methodology and structure. ... So, when we think about that Gen X group that's out there, we see them driving an enormous part of this change.

The last statistic I saw was that they are now over 50 percent of the workforce. The analogy that's always used is that, to them, being connected and always involved in some type of networking-based collaboration or information sharing of some sort is about the same as it is for you and me to pick up our remote controls and turn on our television sets. That's already having a very profound effect on how business and government are changing and the expectations that are out there in the marketplace.

It's this [demand for] immediate or instant gratification: "If I can't get what I want in the following way, I’ll find the business or government environment where I can." While the government piece maybe a bit harder to change, the business piece isn't, and so the competitive pressure to serve this audience, both as the consumer and also as employees, is a big part of that shift.

We see technology as the cornerstone to being able to solve some of these trends and some of these challenges.

We call that the "Now Problem." They want this, they want it done now, and they want it to work a certain way. We see technology as the cornerstone to being able to solve some of these trends and some of these challenges.

These changes are at a pace they’ve never seen before as they address them and try to drive these into their business or government environments.

This is probably best represented in the words of Professor Gary Hamel, who is the foremost business visionary person out there in the marketplace. In his book, Future of Management, he described it as "whiplash change."

That's very much the case when I speak with our clients both on the business side and the government side. That's exactly what they're sitting there and thinking and working through right now.

Role of technology

We look at the technology piece of [the change] and say that you really can't [react] any other way -- the pace of it, the speed of it, and some of the complexity associated with it. For a long time, business has tried to use labor as an arbitrage to try to work their way through this and just throw bodies at it. That's quickly dissipating. The speed and the connectedness that we see, and the confidence level that all of these types of services require make it no longer possible to go through that.

What we see is IT completely embedded in the business. Over the next couple of years, that's going to continue to be the trend and the strategy that will play out in the way in which business and government work this. Ultimately, that's going to be the differentiator that drives an ability not only to serve these constituencies but to out-serve them, and that's going to be the name of the game.

[The solution] starts with a desire to change and to drive innovation in a different way. We sit and we think about the fundamental change in this. We talked for years that the business was focused on business processes and business process reengineering. While that’s still very important, it isn't going to go away any time soon.

It's becoming obvious that the bigger driver and the more significant trend is the information process, understanding the segments of business or government that need to be addressed. What their needs are, what they want, what they want to talk about, the ways in which they want to interact is all part of this change that’s taking place.

Closing the gap

So, as we start to pull back and step back from this, we look at that and we look at this vision that we have for the Instant-On Enterprise and how we’re enabling end-users to become a part of that, how we’re enabling businesses and governments to provide that type of capability. It really is about closing the gap between what IT can provide and what the business needs to be able to serve each of those audiences.

What we’ve launched with this vision is to put the foundations in place to make that possible and take a journey with our clients both from the business side and government side and help them move down that particular path, find ways to navigate these challenges and these trends, and to out-serve and to over-serve all the audiences that they need to meet the needs of.

[This change] is inevitable. Different businesses and governments will have, at different times, one of these four elements be more important or more significant to them at different points. All of them share the innovation requirement. We see that in all things.

Our view is that the innovation has to take place throughout that information process. It doesn’t matter whether it happens back at the data center or at every touch point. Innovation has to take place throughout for the business to meet the needs of those segments I’ve referred to earlier -- how it services it, how it conducts itself, and ultimately how it meets our needs or exceeds the needs of the audiences.

Agility really is about instant expectations, and can we turn things on and off, instead of just setting them up for a rainy day and hoping that they will be used.

Agility, optimization, and risk all vary in and out with innovation in terms of their need and their level of importance.

Agility really is about instant expectations, and can we turn things on and off, instead of just setting them up for a rainy day and hoping that they will be used. A big part of technology’s trouble in the past was that we created all of these things and we never had a plan for ending their lifecycle or turning them down slightly, so that we could turn up other activities or other possibilities in an instant-on environment and an instant-on enterprise. A core part of the vision that we see is being able to drive that agility to meet those changing business needs.

When HP looks at the Instant-On Enterprise, the enablement of that is really a journey, and we’ve got to figure out what pieces make the most sense. There are some things that are much easier to focus on first and then, over time, to gain more and more of an Instant-On nature.

Critical success factors

Flexibility, security, speed, automation, and insight, those absolutely are attributes that we look for. We see them as the critical success factors in the way in which every part of the environment that IT leverages, drives, and embeds in the business has to come forward.

And yet, everybody is stuck in this mode of an enormous legacy that they have to deal with, and that gets in the way of being able to provide some of these new capabilities.

We’ve spent a lot of time and gotten a lot of expertise over the years trying to figure out the best ways to address these albatrosses that are keeping IT from being able to deal with the needs of the business. In the Instant-On Enterprise journey, that's a big part of the set of steps that we have to work through and work with our clients to make sure that they understand where to prioritize.

In the first few months that I have been here, one of the things that I've learned is that HP, as a company, has this incredible breath and depth of portfolio.

Our view is that we work with our clients and figure out ways that they can, as we say, shift that equation. How do you shift from 70 percent of that equation being focused on operational management, and 30 percent, if you are lucky, being spent on new and innovation-based capabilities to help or assist the business and its growth versus shifting it the other way? How do you get to 30 percent operational mode, and move forward with 70 percent focused on the business?

Changing business models

When I spend time with clients and listen to them, a big part of what they're asking for is, "We’ve got these pressures. We're seeing the business models change and we're experimenting with some things. We're seeing the mobile and the cloud computing pieces coming at us like a freight train. At the same time, we're seeing the demographic shift both on the end-user consumer side and on our employee side. We need strategic partners to help us with this. How do we navigate this? What is the way in which we should do that? HP, do you have a point of view?"

We're in a unique position, because we're the only company in the marketplace that has a full suite of consumer products, and yet we stretch all the way back through to the data center. All the capability, all the offerings, that are in between, all the services that are necessary to address each of those pieces, are contained inside the portfolio capability that HP has of hardware, software, and services.

We looked at this and said, "How do we take the best combination of that breadth of portfolio and bring those together in a set of solutions to best address what we are hearing over-and-over from some of the research that we’ve done and listening that we’ve done with our clients?"

They need to figure out how to modernize their applications. We want to make sure that we are there and we’ve got a set of solutions for that. They’ve got huge data-center issues in terms of how they're going to transform their data centers and deal with more virtualization-based techniques and capabilities and bring networking and storage and compute power together in some fashion.

They’ve got this issue of enterprise security. They need to figure out how to secure the enterprise. I don’t mean desktops, but all points, all touch points of the enterprise -- how they build applications, how this information is accessed inside and outside of the organization, and then fundamentally optimizing that information, the ways in which you store it, the way in which you deliver it, the way in which you print it for that matter, all those pieces.

Hybrid delivery for us is our answer to the multiple ways in which a customer or client has to go through the process of building or delivering on these various technology services to their enterprise or their government.

Then, they need to underpin that by the best way to figure out how to deliver it. Do we do it for them? Do they build it themselves with our architecture, and our capability set, and our consulting expertise? What combination of ways makes the most sense to set that up?

... We help our clients work their way through that with a series of workshops that we do to get in and investigate. We ask a series of questions, do a series of exploratory-based activities that help prioritize where we think the quickest return on investment is, because all these require some level of return to feed the next one and then the next one.

Hybrid delivery for us is our answer to the multiple ways in which a customer or client has to go through the process of building or delivering on these various technology services to their enterprise or their government.

There’s an enormous amount of talk about cloud in the marketplace today. HP has been at the forefront of that, but we have a little different position. We think it’s unique and we think we're the only ones out there that are really positioned to do this, which is the concept of hybrid IT, where you’ve got a mix. You’ve got a mix of traditional on-premises-based capabilities, but then you figure out what private cloud or public cloud-based capabilities best serve your business on a global basis.

HP comes in and, unlike other companies that try to force you into a one-size-fits-all structure, we sit down with the client. Our unique IP in this area is that we have an incredible depth of intellectual capital in this particular area, which is helping the clients figure out the best balance or mix of the delivery methods.

We can help them build it. They can host it or we can host it for them. We can provide those services from our public cloud-based capabilities or from our private cloud based capabilities. We really don’t care, if that blend changes over time. That’s the beauty to the journey to this Instant-On Enterprise.

Starting small

Our data says that most customers still start with a small private cloud implementation to really understand the value of the cloud and demystify it. We’ve said that there is going to be something after cloud. We don’t know what that level or that style of computing is going to be, but our architecture is built such that we’ll be ready for that. For our clients, we’ll help navigate them through each of these pieces, and that’s the important thing for us.

We have our new HP Hybrid Delivery Strategy Service, which is a place for a client to start, get a basic orientation, sit down and understand kind of where we think they might consider beginning that journey. So that, along with a number of other capabilities that we have to help them through these various workshops, I think is really the best place for them to start.

There are a whole series of workshops globally that our teams are set up to do, everything from a small couple-of-hour based interaction to a full suite of in-depth analysis and consulting engagements to work with a client. ... We ask a series of questions, do a series of exploratory-based activities that help prioritize where we think the quickest return on investment is, because all these require some level of return to feed the next one and then the next one.

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

You may also be interested in:

• Shoemaker on how HP CSA Aids Total Visibility in Services Management Lifecycle for Cloud Computing
• HP Business Service Automation portfolio gives IT the tools it needs to compete with clouds
• HP eyes automated apps deployment, 'standardized' private cloud creation with integrated CloudStart package
• HP adds new consulting services to smooth the enterprise path to cloud adoption

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: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 16th November 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

The lives of IT admins in Windows environments should get a little easier with the launch of rPath's rBuilder 5.8 for "push-button" deployment of Windows Server instances.

The Raleigh, N.C. company's rBuilder 5.8 introduces release automation to the world of Windows Server applications. With the new software, rBuilder 5.8 earns bragging rights as a first commercial solution to address deployment automation for Windows instances and apps. [Disclosure: rPath is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

The deployment challenge

For most IT organizations, deploying Windows apps into production is complex, cumbersome, and time-consuming. That complexity can lead to long delays in full deployments that leave a dark cloud hanging over service levels and business agility.

The rise of public cloud services such as Amazon EC2 has further motivated IT to become more responsive to business lines.

With its automation approach, rBuilder 5.8 is wrestling that challenge to the ground with what it calls “push-button deployment” of Windows apps. This software helps to automatically resolve dependencies to virtually eliminate deployment-time failures, automatically generate standard MSI packages that are ready to deploy, apply version control to all packaged elements, and eliminate drift between dev, test, and production release stages, says rPath.

rBuilder 5.8 also generates image output on demand for rapid deployment or retargeting between physical, virtual, and cloud environments, makes way for targeted changes for low-overhead, conflict-free maintenance, and provides a single enterprise solution for automated deployment of any application, running any platform, deployed to any execution environment -- physical, virtual, or cloud, said rPath.

There are some more resources available on the capabilities and new release: Attend a free, live webinar Nov. 16; watch a short video; read a whitepaper, and learn more.

The need for deployment speed

Deployment dysfunction is a primary source of delay in delivering IT services in response to business demand. The rPath solution also works to complement Microsoft development and operating environments, including Team Foundation Server and System Center Configuration Manager.

With some 70 to 80 percent of IT spending due to operating expenses, nearly half is attributable to deployment-related tasks. This is particularly true for Microsoft Windows environments, which constitute 74 percent of the data-center server market. If rBuilder 5.8 lives up to its promises, it could find a home in many Windows-based IT departments. And it lends a hand in migration and hybrid deployments, too.

rPath has also joined the Microsoft System Center Alliance, a partner community in support of the System Center ecosystem. The System Center Alliance provides an online community that aims to help partners collaborate on the creation of solutions for the System Center and deliver an information resource about these new solutions for customers and sales channel partners.

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.

You may also be interested in:

• rPath brings data center automation to Windows environments
  
• Trio of cloud companies collaborate on new private cloud platform offerings
  
• rPath offers free management tool for applications aspiring to the cloud

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 12th November 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

Businesses are increasingly using cloud and e-commerce to improve how they do sales, marketing, and online transactions.

One smaller company, Tampa-based MarkMaster, has quickly moved to nearly all-paperless sales transactions, found new customers via online networks, and increased the amount of product it sells to its existing clients. This was accomplished without a lot of additional IT or business-process spending by using cloud-based collaborative business commerce solutions.

To learn more about how MarkMaster is conducting its business better, BriefingsDirect's Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, recently interviewed Kevin Govin, the CEO at MarkMaster.

Here are some excerpts:

Govin: E-commerce has definitely changed our reach, which is national and international. We have a plant in Birmingham, England, that we fulfill from as well for our American-based companies. We service nine of the top 10 banks in United States. We do eight of the top 10 insurance companies. Without cloud computing, there's just no way we would have even considered doing that. ... This all has been just a godsend for us.

It's totally changed our business. I laughed a little bit at your intro, when you talked about going "paperless." One of our main product lines is rubber stamps, and it seems counter-productive to go paperless with what we do.

Yet we have changed a lot. Now, 95 percent of our orders come electronically. We have one location in the United States that services all of the US and Europe. How could we do that without some kind of cloud transacting? It just makes the most sense. Over the last 10 years, I think 99 percent of our new customers have been coming through those kinds of systems.

Most of our products are considered office supplies. So, I have to look like the big Office Maxes, Office Depots, and that kind of thing. That’s how we present ourselves. Even though we're the biggest in our industry, we're still a small company.

We deal mostly with Fortune 500 companies. We sell rubber stamps, name badges, name plates, and interior/exterior signage. It's a unique field, kind of a niche market, as rubber stamps are a mature market. But, we seem to be gaining market share, so that’s been great for us.

Top-line, our sales are growing at least 10 to 15 percent a year for the last 10 years, and that’s the same time-frame that we’ve been on e-commerce and now cloud computing. So we have to believe that that’s a lot of it. Our industry is shrinking as well. There were 1,200 rubber stamp makers, now there are 400.

Quick turnaround from cloud
We definitely use the cloud-computing models to go out and sell. There is nothing jazzy about a rubber stamp. Name badges are pretty much specified by the customers. So, we are not out there selling anything new or exciting as far as that’s concerned.

But we have changed our model, and our salespeople don’t travel with the product. They travel with the computer and they show what we can do online and what kinds of services we can provide.

The investment in hardware has actually come down over time, but we do like to keep up today with the current technologies.

We can turn around on a customer in two days, because it's just all uploading something. There are no ports to connect or anything highly technical at all.

Because both on the buyer and the supplier supply side we are having hosted solutions or in the cloud it makes it a lot easier. There used to be a real reluctance from the customers to want to put us on board, because I might only be $100,000 year in spend, and they were going to outlay a lot of IT to connect me.

Now, with cloud solutions, there is very little IT on either end. I'd imagine that it's even easier now than it was with the paper system before, because we can communicate to their end-users that we’re out here, and we’re ready to be bought from.

We work heavily within the Ariba network, and because of that, now we are an Ariba Silver supplier. So, there's a lot of pluses that go with that, and we use a lot of banner ads and things like that.

We’re posted out on Ariba’s Discovery area, so they can find us very easily, and when they look at that, they see number of connections, and we get instant credibility on top of that. Then, of course, we even use the Ariba LIVE event. That’s huge for us, because it puts us in front of all those users that are looking for somebody like us.

One of the larger banks that we deal with, when we originally started with them, weren’t even considering us as a supplier, but they found us on the Ariba Discovery network. They called us and said, "Can you really do all of this. You're a small supplier?"

We showed them our list of what we have, where we’d already made Silver. So they knew we were vetted already by the supplier and we ended up with the business. It wasn't necessarily in a RFQ kind of environment either. It was "Wow. You can do this, and you’re the supplier we want and, in our case, you’re a minority supplier." So, it was just having that all together.

Can't always be there
But, they found us on Ariba. We didn’t solicit them. I mean, we had been soliciting them, and they knew of us, but we can't always be there when the customers need these products now. It's just too hard, because our products are needed everyday. So, that came out very well for us.

Bottom-line, we have had year-over-year growth, and our customer service department has not grown, or added anybody to that staff. How does that work, because we've grown exponentially? The reality is online systems.

We proactively give them the information as to the status of their order, and they can actually see it go through our plan step-by-step. Does everybody need that information? No, but it does keep them from calling customer service. So it’s definitely changed.

Now, 10 years ago, we were 95 percent paper, and it's just totally flipped. So, you can count on your hand the overhead that this gets rid of.

We’re always talking about transacting in the cloud and getting orders and billing. The billing part is where we want our customers to go next, because it seems like the front-end integration is great, but on the back end there are 100,000 different ways that people want us to bill them and get paid—EDIs or ACH or whatever.

We see it coming. People are migrating to the pay element, so that everything is integrated, and that’s great for us. It turns money faster. I don’t deal with credit cards as much, all of which cost me a lot of overhead.

Remember, my products are $5 or $6. People buy one at a time. So, handling invoices is just a nightmare. I get 20,000 invoices every day. We need to upload them, link them, and know the bill is okay.

My clients are not the kind of clients that aren’t paying me because they don’t have the money. They're the kind of clients that aren’t paying because I didn’t do the paperwork correctly. So having that end-to-end order-to-pay integration is where we see it's coming next for us in integrating the whole cycle. Some of my larger banks have definitely gotten on-board with that and it's great, and for a small company, it changed my cash-flow 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: 11th November 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

How do IT architectures at software-as-a-service (SaaS) providers provide significant advantages over traditional enterprise IT architectures?

We answer that "Architecture is Destiny" question by looking at how one human resources management (HRM), financial management and payroll SaaS provider, Workday, has from the very beginning moved beyond relational databases and distributed architectures that date to the mid-1990s.

Instead, Workday has designed its architecture to provide secure transactions, wider integrations, and deep analysis off of the same optimized data source—all to better serve business needs. The advantages of these modern services-based architecture can be passed on to the end users—and across the ecosystem of business process partners—at significantly lower cost than conventional IT.

Joining us here is a technology executive from Workday, Petros Dermetzis, Vice President of Development there, to explore how architecting properly provides the means to adapt and extend how businesses need to operate, and not be limited by how IT has to operate. The discussion is moderated by BriefingsDirect's Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions.

Here are some excerpts:

Dermetzis: We have a unique opportunity to stand back and see what history and evolution provided over the past 20 years and say, "Okay, how can we provide one technology stack that starts addressing all those individual problems that started appearing over time?"

If you think of the majority of the systems out there, the way we describe them is that they were built from the ground up as islands. It was really very data-centric. The whole idea was that the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system gave all the solutions, which in reality isn't true.

What we tried to do at Workday was start from a completely white sheet of paper. The reality around ERP systems is actually making all this work together. You want your transactions, you want your validations, you want to secure your data, and at the same time you want access to that data and to be able to analyze it. So, that’s the problem we set out to do.

What drove our technology architecture was first, we have a very simple mentality. You have a central system that stores transactions, and you make sure that it's safe, secure, encrypted, and all these great words. At the same time, we appreciate that systems, as well as humans, interact with this central transactional system. So we treat them not as an afterthought, but as equal citizens.

If you go back in time to when mainframes started appearing, it was about transactions, capturing transactions, and safeguarding those transactions. IT was the center of the universe and they called the shots. As it evolved over time, IT began to realize that departments wanted their own solutions. They try to extract the data and take them into areas, such as spreadsheets and what have you, for further analysis.

ERP solutions evolved over time and started adding technology solutions as problems occurred. They started with a need to report data and very quickly realized it was like climbing a ladder of hierarchic needs. When you get your basic reporting right, you need to start analyzing data.

The technologies at the time, around the relational models, don’t actually address that very well. Then, you find other industries, like business intelligence (BI) vendors, appeared who tried to solve those problems.

The way things evolved, you started with an application, and integrations were an afterthought; they got bolted on. ... They kept on adding more and more and more layers of vendors, and the more the poor enterprise IT customers are trying to peel it, the more they start crying—crying in terms of maintenance and maintenance dollars.

Old approach won't scale
Right now, the state of the art is hard-wiring most of these central solutions to these third-party solutions, and that basically doesn't scale. That’s where technology kicks in and you have to adopt new open standard and web services standards.

What we try to do at Workday is understand holistically what the current problems are today, and say, "This is a golden opportunity." This is opposed to finding all existing technologies, cobbling them all together, and trying to solve the problems exactly the same way.

If you're managing any system with HRM systems, you need to communicate with other systems, be it for background checks, for providing information to benefit providers, connecting to third-party payrolls, or what have you.

Obviously, [traditional ERP vendors] were solving the problem incrementally, as they were going along. What we tried to do was address it all in the same place. Where we are right now is what I would describe as very business transaction-centric in what I define as legacy applications. Then, we want to take it more to an area which is business interactions, and interactions can happen from humans or machines.

We're creating a revolution in the ERP industry. As always, you have early adopters. At the other end of the bell-shaped curve, you've got the laggards. When you're talking to forward thinking, modern thinking, profit-oriented, innovative companies, they very quickly appreciate that the way to go is SaaS.

Now, they've got a bunch of questions, and most of the questions are around security—"Is my data safe?" We have a huge variety of ways of assuring our customers that these are actually probably safer in our environment than on-premise.

Some customers wait, and some will just jump in the pool with everyone else. We are in our fifth year of existence, and it’s very interesting to see how our customers are scaling from the small, lower end, to huge companies and corporations that are running on Workday.

A blast from the past
Applications are built on top of relational databases today, and then they are being designed thinking about the end-user, sitting in front of a browser, interacting with the system. But, really they were designed around capturing the transaction and being able to report straight-off that transaction.

The idea of integrating with third parties was an afterthought. Being an afterthought, what happened was that you find this new industry emerging, which is around extract, transform and load (ETL) tools and integration tools. It was a realization that we have to coexist within the many systems.

What happened was that they bolted on these integration third-party systems straight onto the database. That sounds very good. However, all the business logic, all the security, and the whole data structure that hangs together is known by the application—and not by the database. When you bolt-on an integration technology on the side, you lose all that. You have to recreate it in the third-party technology.

Similarly, when it comes to reporting, relational technology does a phenomenal job with the use of SQL and producing reports, which I will define as two-dimensional reports, for producing lists, matrix reports, and summary reports. But, eventually, as business evolves, you need to analyze data and you have to create this idea of dimensionality. Well, yet another industry was created—and it was bolted back onto the database level, which is the [BI] analytics, and this created cubes.

In fact, what they used were object-oriented technologies and in-memory solutions for reasons of performance to be able to analyze data. This is currently the state of the art.

The same treatment
Conversely, any request that comes into our system, be it from a UI or from a third-party system by integrations, we treat exactly the same way. They go through exactly the same functional application security. It knows exactly what the structure of your object model is. It gets evaluated exactly the same way and then it serves back the answer. So that fundamental principle solves most of our integration problems.

On the integration side, we just work off open standards. The only way that you can talk with a third-party system with Workday is through web services, and those services are contracts that we spec to the outside world. We may change things internally, but that’s our problem.

That’s the point where we have a technology around our enterprise service plus our integration server that actually talks the language that we do, standards web service based. At the same time, it's able to transform any bit of that information to whatever the receiving component wants, whether it’s banking, the various formats, or whatever is out there.

We put the technology into the hands of our customers to be able to ratchet down the latest technology to whatever other file structures that they currently have. We provide that to our customers, so they can connect them to the card-scanning systems, security systems, badging systems, or even their own financial systems that they may have in house.

We're a SaaS vendor, and we do modify things and we add things, but those external contracts, which are the Web services talking to third-party systems, we respect and we don’t change. So, in effect, we do not break the integrations.

Best way to access data
The next architectural benefit is about analyzing data. As I said, there are a lot of technologies out there that do a very good job at lists and matrix reporting. Eventually, most of these things end up in spreadsheets, where people do further analysis.

But the dream that we are aiming for continuously is: When you are looking at a screen, you see a number. That number could be an accumulation of counts that you'd be really interested in clicking on and finding out what those counts are—name of applicants, name of positions, number of assets that you have. Or, it's an accumulation. You look at the balance sheet. You look at the big number. You want to click and figure out what comprises that number.

To do that, you have to have that analytical component and your transactional component all in the same place. You can't afford what I call I/Os. It's a huge penalty to go back and forth through a relational database on a disk. So, that forces you to bring everything into memory, because people expect to click something and within earth time get a response.

The technology solutions that we opted for was this totally in-memory object model that allows us to do the basic embedded analytics, taking action on everything you see on the screen.When you are traversing, you come to a number in a balance sheet, and as you're drilling around, what you are really doing in effect is traversing an object model underneath, and you should be able to get that for nothing.

So the persistence layer is really forced by the analytical components. When you're analyzing information, it has to perform extremely fast. You only have one option, and that is memory. So, you have to bring everything up in-memory.

We do use a relational component, but not as a relational database. We use a relational database, which is really good at securing your data, encrypting your data, backing up your data, restoring it, replicating it, and all these great utilities the database gives you, but we don’t use a relational model. We use an object model, which is all in-memory.

But, you need to store things somewhere. In fact, we have a belief at Workday that the disk, which is more the relational component, is the future tape. What you used to use in legacy systems was putting things on tape for safety and archiving reasons. We use disk, and we actually believe, if you look at the future, that nearly everything will be done exclusively in-memory.

Make way for metadata
And, there is another bit of technology that you add to that. We're a totally metadata-driven technology stack. Right now, we put out what we describe as updates three times a year. You put new applications, new features, and new innovations into the hands of your customers, and being in only one central place, we get immediate feedback on the usage, which we can enhance. And, we just keep on going on and keep on adding and adding more and more and more.

This is something that was an absolute luxury in your legacy stack, to take a complete release. You have to live through all the breakages that we mentioned before around integrations and the analytical component.

As soon as you can have the luxury of maintaining one system, let's call it one code line, and you're hanging our customers, our tenants, off that one single code line, it allows you to do very, very frequent upgrades or updates or new releases, if you wish, to that central code line, because you only have to maintain one thing.

Multi-tenancy is also one of the core ingredients, if you want to become a SaaS vendor. Now, I'm not an advocate of saying multi-tenancy A is better than multi-tenancy B. There are different ways you can solve the multi-tenancy problems. You can do it at the database level, the application level, or the hardware level. There’s no right or wrong one. The main difference is, what does it cost?

All we're looking at is one single code line that we have to maintain and secure continuously. We believe in one single code line, and multiple tenants are sharing that single code line. That reduces all our efforts around revving it and updating it. That does result in cost savings for the vendor, in other words, ourselves.

And as far back as I can remember, when humans realized that you take time and material, package that for a profit, and send it to your end-market, as soon as you can reduce your cost of the time or the material, you can either pocket the difference, or move that cost saving onto your customers.

We believe that multi-tenancy is one of the key ingredients of reducing the cost of maintenance that we have internally. At the same time, it allows us to rev new innovative applications out to the market very quickly, get feedback for it, and pass that cost savings on to our customers, which then they can take that and invest in whatever they do—making carpets, yogurt, or electric motors.

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: 10th November 2010 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2010

WSO2 recently announced the debut of WSO2 Carbon Studio, an Eclipse-based integrated developer environment (IDE) for WSO2 Carbon.

The new offering allows users to build service-oriented architecture (SOA) and composite applications based on WSO2 Carbon. [Disclaimer: WSO2 is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Highlights of WSO2 Carbon Studio include the ability to:

• Organize artifacts that span the multiple runtimes common to composite applications into a single project—a Carbon Application (CApp).
• Develop applications using tools designed for WSO2 Carbon-based products including the WSO2 ESB, WSO2 Web Services Application Server (WSO2 WSAS), WSO2 Business Process Server (BPS), WSO2 Governance Registry, and more.
• Test and debug WSO2 Carbon-based applications directly within the IDE.
• Export Carbon Applications in the new Carbon Archive format.

“We have found that many of our customers are developing sophisticated applications that span the WSO2 Carbon product family, and they are taking advantage of the unique strengths of our platform when used as a whole,” said Dr. Sanjiva Weerawarana, founder and CEO of WSO2. “We’re now revving up our tooling support with WSO2 Carbon Studio—helping developers to organize, develop, test, and deploy these composite applications with greater ease than ever before.”

Middleware platform
The WSO2 Carbon Studio IDE is designed to take advantage of the open source WSO2 Carbon middleware platform. The Eclipse-based offering includes graphical editors for XML configuration files, an enhanced Eclipse BPEL editor, and easy integration of Carbon-based applications with the WSO2 Governance Registry. Additionally, Carbon Studio offers a rich set of third-party Eclipse plug-ins, including Maven and the OpenSocial Gadget Editor.

Carbon Studio supports SOA projects that often combine multiple application types into a single composite application or service. Developers also have single-click function for testing Java-based applications and services—without leaving the IDE. Debugging tools support Axis2-based services, Apache Synapse mediators, registry handlers, and data validators.

Tools to support SOA development include Apache Axis2 and JAX-WS, Data Service, BPEL, ESB, and ESB Tooling, as well as a gadget editor.

WSO2 Carbon Studio, available now as a set of Eclipse plug-ins, is a fully open-source solution released under Eclipse and Apache Licenses and does not carry any licensing fees. WSO2 offers a range of service and support options for Carbon Studio, including development support and production support.