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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Peter Williams, Practice Leader - IT Infrastructure Mgmt., Bloor Research Posted: 26th January 2012 Copyright Bloor Research © 2012

Thanks to x86 and other "commodity" components, users usually get good value for money from their server systems. However, storage subsystems and their connectivity remain stubbornly complex and costly. This has got to change - and for some this has started to happen.

When I wrote about Coraid last summer, I wondered about storage users' familiarity with ATA over Ethernet (AoE), especially when running Windows for which is fairly new. Coraid is belatedly betting its shirt on AoE which can be blisteringly fast. It developed the "protocol/compute layer" as far back as 2004 then donated it as open source to the Linux community, not then realising what it had; AoE has been part of the Linux kernel since 2005.

Coraid's progress in the past year has been solid - a user base of around 1,500 customers compared with 1,000 a year ago - and expansion in Europe from its UK office as well as a small start in APAC. In its storage arrays, it has now added flash to mix and match with SAS and various SATA drives (in a choice of RAID levels or JBOD) in the SAN.

But CEO Kevin Brown has a bigger vision for its AoE approach - which is to drive a commodity pricing revolution for storage. "Storage is like a mainframe when rest of system has become commoditised" Brown told me. This contrasted with servers long commoditised with x86 and, for instance, a 10GbE port could cost under $500. (EMC and NetApp may not take this too seriously but could perhaps be caught short, especially at the low-end.)

Using Coraid's AoE technique, the SAN (theirs or another's), appears to VMware of Hyper-V as a single direct-attached storage (DAS) drive - as a single SCSI controller "except that it has latency under one second" Brown added. Then the Coraid architecture covers the whole network, both initiating and receiving the storage data requests that cross the Ethernet wires. This, he said, removed several layers of complexity and was simple to set up, not least because everyone's server has long provided DAS connectivity.

The potential from this is manifesting itself in several ways that also help define Coraid's roadmap for the coming months. For instance, Brown wants to complement AoE by making everything simple. So Coraid is aiming for an end-user on-screen Q&A to define the storage need without concern for LUNs or HBAs - from which the software automatically tailors all the configuring and manages day-to-day operation. This helps explain the company's purchase of cloud orchestration software vendor Yunteq late last year as, for instance - it brought in a policy engine; the first fruits of this may appear mid-year.

In turn, this reflects another trend Brown told me he was witnessing. More and more internal and external clouds are appearing - and VARs were realising that, as well as reselling AoE, they could also start to offer cloud services of their own. However, that, in turn, put pressure on Coraid to automate its storage tiering management and to make sure security was sufficiently granular and robust (although the VARs can already provide complementary third party solutions). On the positive side, its own operating system and architecture was designed from scratch as distributed and scale-out, allowing very rapid expansion, as may be needed in clouds.

This week, Coraid announced a technology alliance partnership with Veeam. Veeam complements Coraid's EtherDrive and EtherFlash with innovative data protection, recovery, DR and management for virtual data centres - that is designed from the ground up for virtualised server environments. Recovery can be for a whole VM or individual file or application item.

It has also not been lost on Coraid that, by controlling storage data traffic end-to-end across the network, it is well placed to provide useful performance measurement software. That could be another nice little earner (but no date has been set for that yet).

Brown sees little value in chasing after conservative enterprises with wall-to-wall Fibre Channel (FC) storage connectivity but everyone else is ripe for this AoE-based storage commoditisation to cut costs and boost performance. The coming year should be enough to confirm whether AoE is likely to break through to make commoditisation a reality.

By: Philip Howard, Research Director - Data Management, Bloor Research Posted: 25th January 2012 Copyright Bloor Research © 2012

There have been a couple of things floating around in the ether about CEP (complex event processing) recently. The first is the question, supposedly credited to Curt Monash, of whether it should be called something different.

I've been going back through my records. When I first wrote a product evaluation of what is now Progress Apama in 2002, I stated that "the company's contention is that conventional approaches to real-time queries are only suitable for small scale environments or those in which limited numbers of data feeds are being monitored. In particular, its view is that these solutions cannot cope with environments where large numbers of data feeds need to be combined in a complex and dynamic fashion." That was the only use of the word "complex" in a total of nearly 3,000 words. Events were mentioned several times, streams not at all.

As an aside, look at Wikipedia and other sources about the development of CEP and you'll see lots of mentions of David Luckham, who coined the CEP term in his book "The Power of Events", published in 2001. You will also see various other attributions to American scholarship but no mention at all to Cambridge (that's UK not Harvard), which is where Apama came from. I guess all the writers are American.

Anyway to get back to the subject, I wrote the following in our report on CEP, published in 2006: "the subject under discussion is frequently referred to as either complex event processing (CEP) or as event stream processing (ESP). We believe that both of these names are misleading: the former suggests that the technology is not also suitable for processing simple events, while you could infer from the latter (processing streams) that this was only about high performance. We prefer event processing as a neutral term to cover all of these possibilities." Frankly, I gave up this argument years ago.

The second piece of discussion that has recently hit the blogosphere is from Chris Carlson at Informatica. He is suggesting, quite rightly, that CEP isn't simply about real-time processing and that, in fact, it is misleading to refer to it as such. Again, from our 2006 report, "event processing is suitable for use in a wide range of diverse environments. Some of these are more about event streaming (low latency) and some are more about complex processing and some potentially both" and "what event processing does is to reduce the data latency, insight latency and, sometimes, the decision latency involved in taking action when compared to traditional approaches." In other words, CEP is about processing real-time data - it isn't necessarily about making real-time decisions.

Finally, I want to make a point about big data and CEP. Back before Christmas I wrote about how only StreamBase and IBM, of the major vendors, are currently, as far as I can tell, targeting their products at general-purpose operational intelligence environments as opposed to specific areas such as capital markets and security services or applications environments such as SOA. I did mention that SAS will be bringing out a product later this year and that there is also Darkstar from Cloud Event Processing (CEP - ycch!) which, naturally, runs in the Cloud. What I didn't mention was that there are a number of companies/products that have been specifically designed to work in conjunction with Hadoop, namely HStreaming, S4 (from Yahoo!) and Storm (from Twitter). I haven't looked at any of these in detail so can't comment on them but that is definitely an area that is heating up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gardner: What other issues are users grappling with?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: David Norris, Practice Leader - Analytics, Bloor Research Posted: 23rd January 2012 Copyright Bloor Research © 2012

"It was the best of times. It was the worst of times." For Dickens, in a Tale of Two Cities, this was how he saw the era of the French Revolution. I think that we live in a time that could be described as being both the worst of times, and the most exciting of times. We face unprecedented economic challenges; challenges that will only be met by business people making more, faster and better decisions about every aspect of their trade. In response to that challenge we are seeing technologies that are just staggeringly exciting with the potential they offer, and one such is Alteryx.

I see two major trends in the BI and analytics space. The two are closely linked to the market challenge. Firstly we have the emergence of what is being described as Agile BI; for me what Agile BI is about is providing the most sophisticated of analytics power to the business user on their desktop, with tools that do not require the skills of a statistician or an IT technician to understand and master, capable of delivering results that are rapid, reliable and readily understood at an affordable price. Then we have the rise of Big Data, which has been written about many times by my colleagues in Bloor, and is not so much about Big as in massive, as being big as a consequence of the range and diversity of data that should, and now can, be included in the decision making process for all but the most trivial of business decisions. It is in this sweet spot that Alteryx sit.

It should be noted that in the big study that McKinsey undertook into Big Data and its implications that they identified that one of the biggest barriers to successful roll out was the shortage of skilled knowledge workers to fill the management posts to use the information wisely. Unfortunately we do not have the time to set up the University courses to fill that void in the near term, but what we do have is products like Alteryx.

Alteryx talk a lot about Data Artisans: by this they mean the people in the business who are tasked with improving marketing responses, improving merchandising, deciding where to locate the next store, reducing churn etc. This is their day job and they do not want an IT project to give them a one-off solution, they need a way to create an ongoing and evolving answer to their needs. Those needs are complex, but they do not want a dumbed down solution, they want one that retains integrity, power and reliability, but which allows them to merge transactional data with operational data, with demographic data, with location intelligence, with social media trends, with market data etc etc. to make an informed decision.

By desktop to cloud they are saying that the whole process of identifying, gathering and loading data - then analysing that data to turn data into information - must be made available on the desktop, with the results then being broadcast via the cloud, be that public or private.

From such descriptions it would be easy to dismiss this as just marketing. But this is not an immature product, it has been going for several years in North America, and is has a very prestigious looking client list with household names like Wal-Mart, and Ford and even Apple. It has a number of vertical apps for groups like Telcos and Retailers that have prebuilt a lot of the functions that people need to do their everyday jobs. These are clearly very successful as 7 out of the 10 North American mobile operators have it deployed because it tackles things like churn, integrating operational data off the network with customer data coming in from the call centre.

As it is sold as a subscription service, these are not just one-off evaluation purchases but renewed deployments that are significant investments by the users. And although they do not a have a direct sales force in EMEA at present (it is planned) they have a channel partner, which is Experian, and Experian themselves use the product as a delivery channel for their data. If you go onto the web site you can see many endorsements by their customers, which indicates how happy they have been with the product.

Because this product essentially has the whole BI stack deployed in the desktop there is a danger that IT people will see it as a threat to the traditional tools, and try to discourage its use. This would be wrong. I do not see this as replacing the existing BI technologies, but it is highly complementary, and it does point to the way that all tools must go in the future. Alteryx clearly do not see their platform as an all-encompassing solution, because they are planning to build connectors to provide Hadoop support via ODBC drivers to Hive, giving them read/write into Hadoop clusters. This illustrates the extremely complex nature of full enterprise BI solutions, as they are now emerging from the era when we saw a single vendor suite on top of a data warehouse as the solution.

I am extremely impressed by what I have seen and will be following the progress of Alteryx with keen interest, and expect to see it putting established analytics players, like IBM and SAS, under pressure to improve their usability and responsiveness in the hands of people outside of the Analytics teams. This is another product to watch in 2012. it should make giant strides.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gardner: What do we need to start doing differently?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does this transition become something that you can manage?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst, Interarbor Solutions Posted: 11th January 2012 Copyright Interarbor Solutions © 2012

Genuitec, LLC has revamped its MobiOne development tool to allow Windows operating system users to design and build App Store-ready iOS apps—native apps for iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch—without using a Mac. This means there is no longer an additional expense to buy a Mac machine or learn Objective-C to design apps that operate natively on iOS devices.

Previously, the Flower Mound, Tex. company's MobiOne supported a webapp-only model that allowed design of webapps that run on iOS devices. Now, users can design native apps or webapps with the same design files, using AppCenter, a cloud technology that Genuitec engineered, that allows app designers to test their native and webapps in a private Genuitec cloud. [Disclosure: Genuitec is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

“By removing the barriers to entry for iOS app design and building, MobiOne is truly at the forefront of making mobile technologies accessible to the masses," said Wayne Parrott, vice president of product development. "If a Windows users has enough skill to design a PowerPoint slide, they can design and build iPhone and iPad apps with ease. Web developers with HTML5 and CSS3 skills will see even greater productivity.”

MobiOne is designed for web developers, marketing departments, business consultants, and anyone who wants to create and build App Store-ready iOS applications and webapps. MobiOne uses drag-and-drop functionality similar to stringing together a PowerPoint presentation, but has a powerful engine that allows users to build iOS apps or webapps from the same code base.

That engine is the AppCenter technology, which allows for easy testing of apps and webapps over the air using iOS 4+ or through iTunes. Testing links can be shared via email or SMS for multiple device testing and previews.

To learn more about the MobiOne Studio, go to http://www.genuitec.com/mobile/docs/highlights/current/. A 15-day free trial is available at: http://www.genuitec.com/mobile/download.html. After the free trial, the cost is $99 per license.

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

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gardner: How is your landscape for cloud?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gardner: And what would be their motivation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 1: AuraPortal Environment (Source: AuraPortal)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gardner: How about security and management benefits?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Bob Tarzey, Service Director, Quocirca Posted: 20th December 2011 Copyright Quocirca © 2011

For IT users, the most important things are the applications that enable them to do their jobs and the devices they access those applications from. However, system administrators (sys-admins), responsible for ensuring end-user devices can link to the applications, know it takes a lot more in between. Resellers know this too; selling both the high and low profile equipment is their bread and butter. What resellers may not realise is the extent to which their customers fail to manage much of their equipment securely and effectively and the additional opportunity this represents.

A new Quocirca research report—Conquering the sys-admin challenge—underlines the extent of the problem. It looked at three broad areas: the management of privilege, the ability to automate sys-admins' tasks and ensuring compliance.

The over-granting of privilege is a common problem; sys-admins are often granted access to more equipment than is necessary and they often have access to data they have no need to see (Figure 1). This is a problem, not because sys-admins are innately malicious people (although a few have turned out to be) but because, just like anyone else, they can make mistakes.

Errors made when acting under privilege can have a serious impact on the availability of IT systems. For example, the failure to backup up a server properly (or at all) may mean data is lost and a project is put back by days or weeks; wrongly reconfiguring a network firewall may lead to remote users being locked out of systems they need to access; or spinning down the wrong disk volume for maintenance purposes may leave an email server out of action.

The new research shows that the average sys-admin's error rate is about 7%. One way to reduce error rates is better management of privilege. To achieve this it is necessary to have tools in place to manage the scope of privilege access, limiting the range of data and devices a sys-admin has access to and the time they have access for.

There is another way to reduce error rates—more automation of sys-admin. Many tasks are mundane and repetitive. A good example is data protection, most organisations regularly backup file servers and many have automated this. However, other devices need protecting too and it is less likely that the settings of firewalls, routers and load balancers are backed-up (Figure 2). This is important for ensuring a quick recovery in the case of failure and the task is an easy one to automate with the right tools. Other tasks can also be automated, including the gathering of data for audits.

This brings us full circle, because one area that auditors are keen to see IT departments have control of is the use of privilege. Some standards are specific about the management of privileged users. One of the controls in the IT service management standard (ITSM) ISO 270001 states, “the allocation and use of privileges shall be restricted and controlled”. The Payment Card Industries Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) recommends, “auditing all privileged user activity”.

Many organisations do not have the controls in place to make sure this required data is gathered. Indeed some admit to appalling practices, in particular the uncontrolled changes to sys-admin procedures immediately prior to audits, which then lapse following the audit. Over two thirds of respondents admitted this happened at least occasionally; for some it was a regular practice (Figure 3).

When it comes to helping customers with the management of privilege, the automation of sys-admins and ensuring compliance, resellers can take one of two approaches. They can either ensure the tools to do their job are available as part of their portfolio or they can use such tools themselves to provide managed services. Vendors that focus on the management and privilege and the automation of IT include Osirium (the sponsors of Quocirca latest report), CA, Cyber-Ark, Quest Software and Lieberman Software.

Quocirca’s new report is freely available to IT-Director readers via this link: http://www.quocirca.com/news/88

This article first appeared in the Computer Reseller News (CRN) UK print edition.

By: Bob Tarzey, Service Director, Quocirca Posted: 19th December 2011 Copyright Quocirca © 2011

Network and security devices age just like any other IT equipment. As the IT industry moves toward 100 gigabit/second Ethernet and 100 megabit/second broadband connections, many existing devices will no longer cope with traffic volumes. The need to replace routers, firewalls, load-balancers, content filtering devices etc. is an on-going process.

Some devices may be reusable by smaller organisations and have a second-hand value; others may just be fit for the dump; when the latter is the case they must be disposed of in line with environment regulations such as the UK Environment Agency’s waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) directive.
 
Either way, such devices will end up in the hands of third-parties, and their eventual destination will not be guaranteed. These devices have all sorts of confidential data and settings stored on them, such as user details and network access settings. In the wrong hands these could be used to gain access to private networks, and anyway, the leaking of such data may constitute a data privacy breach. If is therefore necessary to ensure all such data is securely deleted before devices are disposed of.
 
It varies by industry, but a recent Quocirca research report shows that around 40% of all organisations said they were not confident all such data was safely removed prior to device deposal. Quocirca suspects that even those who claim to have done so have not actually shredded data but just “deleted” it, and a determined hacker may still be able to retrieve it. Only audited disk shredding or secure reformatting tools, carried out by screened staff, can ensure such devices are completely safe to dispose of.
 
To see the full research behind this and get a free copy of Quocirca’s report – “Conquering the sys-admin challenge” – click here http://www.osirium.com/alpha-files/wp

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Philip Howard, Research Director - Data Management, Bloor Research Posted: 19th December 2011 Copyright Bloor Research © 2011

It's that time of year. Here are a few thoughts about what's to come, in no particular order.

1. Real-time everything. Hardly a surprise. It's been real-time everything for a few years. What I think is interesting is the growth in the data replication market specifically to support real-time BI as opposed to failover, disaster recovery, zero-downtime migrations and the like. I would not be at all surprised if we see the introduction of lightweight BI-only data replication products into the marketplace.
2. Continuous BI. I think we'll hear a lot more about this as a generic market for complex event processing as opposed to the vertical markets that CEP has previously addressed.
3. CEP adoption by SIEM vendors. I have been arguing for the last two years that SIEM architectures are generally antiquated. The big breakthrough will come if (I think it more likely to be when) IBM announces that InfoSphere Streams has been integrated with QRadar. Now you have a big beast on the one hand and smaller, more agile companies like Red Lambda and Tier-3 all offering CEP in this space and the other suppliers will have to follow suit or a) appear out-of-date and slow (which they are) or b) limit themselves to the SME market.
4. Warehousing adoption by SIEM vendors. This is the other thing I have been calling for. How can you claim to offer analytics against security and log data if you don't have an analytic platform to support it? Anyway, what's the betting that IBM links up Netezza with QRadar (and, for that matter Guardium)? If they do, there could be a scramble to catch up by the other suppliers, which will be good news for other data warehousing companies and also for Sensage, which is the only company in the SIEM space that actually seems to understand how important this is and has done something about it.
5. Growth in PMML adoption. Talk to more or less anyone outside the data mining community and they have hardly ever heard of the Predictive Modelling Mark-up Language, the standard for porting data mining models. Well, bear in mind that InfoSphere Streams supports PMML and that whenever SAS comes out with its CEP product it is highly likely to support PMML and you have a situation where leading players in both the continuous BI and SIEM spaces are supporting this standard. Isn't it likely that others will have to follow suit?
6. Lots more big data. Well, of course. Unfortunately, I don't expect to see any more clarity during 2012. Indeed, the reverse. As more products and companies enter this space, or claim to, the more murky the whole big data thing will become.
7. The emergence of the Data Scientist. This is a new class of information worker that appears to have emerged recently. Back in the 90s when data mining first started to become popular the people who found useful needles in haystacks of information were usually data mining specialists. With Hadoop you do not need data mining skills in quite the same way but you have similar tasks to perform. That's what the data scientist does: in effect, determining what the business should be monitoring.
8. The logical data warehouse. I wrote about the death of the traditional EDW as the home for all things great and good some time ago and the logical data warehouse, at least as a concept, seems to me pretty much a done deal now. The complication is that vendors like Sybase (SAP) can support a logical EDW within a single physical installation but that's an implementation issue rather than a conceptual one.

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some excerpts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Philip Howard, Research Director - Data Management, Bloor Research Posted: 14th December 2011 Copyright Bloor Research © 2011

All the recent compliance headlines in the financial services sector, at least in the UK and Europe, have been around Solvency II, Basel III and MiFid II. A regulation that has been largely overlooked (except by Trillium (which has just announced the Trillium FATCA Compliance Data Assessment service) by the IT industry is FATCA.

FATCA (foreign account tax compliance act) is a US law that comes into effect on 1st January 2013. It is designed to ensure that US citizens who hold assets abroad pay relevant taxes. So, suppose I lived in Boston (Massachusetts not Lincolnshire) and had an account with a UK-based bank, through which I held various investments. Today, I might be able to get away with not paying US tax on any profit I made from these investments. FATCA has been designed to ensure that that will not be possible in future.

FATCA applies to both US financial institutions that have any dealings overseas and to so-called foreign financial institutions: USFIs and FFIs respectively. These include banks, insurance companies, alternative investment companies, private equity companies, hedge funds and so on and (subject to their being some level of non-US interaction) to any financial company that either has US citizens as customers or which holds US assets.

FFIs can either register as participating or as non-participating. Non-participation means that you are effectively opting out. However, if you do this, or if you are a participating company and fail to comply with the regulations, then the US tax authorities will apply a 30% withholding tax against any sales of US assets. Moreover, this is not against profits but against revenue so you could sell a stock at a loss and then have the 30% deducted. It is difficult to imagine any company that has any significant US business not wanting to both participate and comply.

If you decide to participate then you must be able to recognise which of your clients are US citizens and you will be required to provide relevant information about those clients. You must also have relevant processes in place to recognise whether new clients are American or not. The same is also true if you formally decide not to participate: you will need to demonstrate that you have procedures in place to recognise if new clients are American and, therefore, reject them as clients.

Unfortunately, the requirement for participating FFIs to provide relevant information about their US clients will fly in the face of the data protection laws of a number of countries. Where this is the case then the FFI will need to obtain a waiver from each of its clients to confirm that that information can be passed to the IRS or it will need to close that account.

Needless to say there are significant data governance implications in order to support FATCA, whether you are a USFI or are an FFI. You will need to know which clients are US citizens, ensure that they have signed a waiver, if relevant, have procedures for identifying whether new clients are US citizens or not, and have processes that ensure that only information about US citizens is provided upon request and that you do not break data protection laws by inadvertently sending information about non-US citizens. You will also need to be very clear about your data quality processes and careful about de-duplication and merging of records.

I have to say that this makes me feel a little sorry for financial services companies. In the UK they have only recently had to comply with FSCS regulations and the insurance sector and banks (those that provide asset management) have to comply with Solvency II, which is the same official start date (it may be delayed) as FATCA. That's a lot to do in a short space of time (not to mention MiFID II and Basel III waiting in the wings). The one consolation is that you need good data governance for all three of these. Those that thought they could get away without seriously addressing data governance for FSCS may not be wishing that they had done it properly the first time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Philip Howard, Research Director - Data Management, Bloor Research Posted: 12th December 2011 Copyright Bloor Research © 2011

I have just got back from the Netezza user conference and there was an interesting presentation on using IBM's Information Server in conjunction with Netezza. The major bone of contention during the presentation, which caused much discussion, was that while most customers and prospects for Netezza were drawn, at least in part, to its simplicity, the last thing they wanted was complex data integration software front-ending to it.

You can see their point. Conversely, if you have 15 data sources, or 50, then you are dealing with a complex problem and hiding that complexity isn't necessarily easy. However, it did get me thinking about how much easier it could be. So here are some thoughts (which are not specific to IBM by the way).

The first thing I would address is semantics, though I don't think that having a semantic layer (à la expressor) is actually necessary: at this level a thesaurus is all you really need. This would know that "account_no" is the same as "custID" and "clientnum" for example. It would be shipped with common synonyms pre-built but should be extensible so that users can define their own equivalences where necessary. It should probably also include support for concatenations and decompositions. For example, you might have a product category field ("AB") and a product number field ("12345") that you want to join together in the warehouse or, conversely, you might have a combined field that you want to split.

Now, of course you can do this stuff using rules but what I am really advocating here is that rules creation and management should be reserved for those transformations that are genuinely complex and the rest should be automated. By separating the thesaurus from rules management you can apply automated capabilities to the former where you cannot do so more broadly.

The second area where more automation could be provided is in datatype conversions. If "account_no" in your OLTP system is numeric but it is alphanumeric in your warehouse then a) the data integration software should recognise this fact and b) it should be able to perform the transformation automatically without you have to tell it do so. Tools like expressor that use semantic typing can do this but, again, you don't necessarily need semantics for this purpose.

Reuse could also be made simpler. If you are going to perform some sort of complex transformation on data from tables X and Y, say, then it cannot be beyond the wit of man for the software to automatically display to you (in a pop-up window perhaps) all the existing transformations that have been defined  across those two tables. The big problem with encouraging reuse is that's it's a hassle finding what's been done previously: so make it really simple.

There's one other biggie that could make a big difference towards removing complexity but unfortunately IBM mentioned it to me rather than the other way around and as it is in their roadmap (not all of the above are) and they want it to be an unpleasant surprise for their competition, you'll have to wait until that feature is announced.

Finally, one of the interesting things that IBM has done with Information Server to support Netezza is to allow jobs to be run in either ETL or ELT-mode. So, you can push joins and processing to either sources or targets, or run on the Information Server platform, as suits you best. This is an excellent idea, I like it a lot. However, the problem is that you have to define even more rules about when you do this: for example, "between 8.00am and 5.00pm use an ETL-based approach but otherwise use ELT". Wouldn't a much simpler option (for the user) be if the data integration product had its own optimiser, collected statistics and so forth, just like a database does, generated an "integration plan" (as opposed to a query plan) and generally automated the whole process of where you perform relevant tasks?

The Netezza users are right: data integration is complex but it behoves vendors of data integration solutions to make it as simple for users as possible.