As CEOs put IT budgets under pressure year after year, CIOs and their teams focus on balancing money spent on running the business (RTB) versus money spent on growing the business (GTB). By decreasing the percentage of their budget spent on maintenance and ongoing operations (RTB), they aim to have a greater share of their budget to spend on projects that grow the business. In the best IT organizations, the ratio can sometimes approach 50:50 — however, a more typical ratio is 70% RTB and 30% GTB.
Unfortunately, such practices suggest an incremental budget cycle — one that looks at the prior year’s spend to determine the next year’s budget. While this may be appropriate for the RTB portion of the IT budget, it is far from ideal for the GTB portion. Incremental budgeting for GTB results in enormous tradeoffs being made as part of the IT governance process, with steering committees making decisions on which projects can be funded based upon the IT and business strategy. Anyone from outside of IT who has worked through IT governance committees understands just how challenging that process can be. And the ultimate result of such tradeoffs is that sometimes valuable projects go unfunded or shadow-IT projects spring up to avoid the process altogether.
To paraphrase Charles Dickens, Q2 2010 seemed like the best of times or the worst of times for the big software vendors. For Microsoft, it was the best of times; for IBM, it was (comparatively) the worst of times; and for SAP it was in between. IBM on June 19, 2010, reported total revenue growth of just 2% in the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2010, with its software unit also reporting 2% growth (6%, excluding the revenues of its divested product lifecycle management group from Q2 2009). Those growth rates were down from 5% growth for IBM overall in Q1 2010, and 11% for the software group. In comparison, Microsoft on June 22, 2010, reported 22% growth in its revenues, with Windows revenues up 44%, Server and Tools revenues up 14%, and Microsoft Business Division (Office and Dynamics) up 15%. And SAP on June 27, 2010, posted 12% growth in its revenues in euros, 5% growth on a constant currency basis, and 5% growth when its revenues were converted into dollars.
What do these divergent results for revenue growth say about the state of the enterprise software market?
Should Marketers Check In To Location-Based Social Networks?
Location-based social networks (LBSNs) have been all over the media lately. Foursquare hit 2 million users. Twitter launched, revamped, and re-launched Places. CNNMoney partnered with Gowalla around its popular annual “100 Best Places to Live” list. There’s even a social experiment -- PleaseRobMe -- that was started in response to the hype around this new social sharing technology. So it’s no surprise that we’ve been getting a lot more questions from marketers lately about these services. Marketers want to know who’s using these services, how often they’re using them, what they’re using them for, how marketers can get involved, and whether they should.
We dug into our research to try to answer these questions, and at a high level what we found is that just 1% of US online adults are using LBSNs weekly, while 4% of them have tried them at least once. The sample size of this 1% of adults who use LBSNs regularly is small, so our findings on their behaviors are directional only, but our research shows that these users are typically young, male, well-educated, and influential. In fact, LBSN users are 38% more likely than the average US online adult to say that friends and family ask their opinions before making a purchase decision.
Apple reinvented the distribution of products and services on mobile phones, opening up direct-to-consumer opportunities for nontelecom companies. The numbers look impressive — more than 5 billion downloads and $1 billion paid to developers in the two years since the launch of the Apple App Store.
However, it also generated $429 million for Apple itself in two years. These revenues are not meaningful to Apple’s core revenues. Due to the limited number of paid apps and their significant concentration among games and navigation apps, it is likely that a significant number of independent developers have not recouped their investments via the current revenue-sharing model. The recent launch of iAd is a way for Apple to maintain the attractiveness of its platform, allowing third parties that provide free apps to develop sustainable business models.
But, despite all the hype around apps, only a minority of consumers download them monthly. A recent Forrester survey of more than 25,000 European adults shows that only 4% of all mobile users and 15% of smartphone users report downloading apps at least once per month. However, the fact that 21% of all European mobile users consider apps to be an important feature when choosing a new mobile handset highlights the large gap between today’s limited usage of apps and consumer awareness and interest.
The application store market is still nascent, but it is evolving quickly. However, in the longer run, few players will be able to address the key factors that will make them a success:
Just read an excellent article on the subject by Tom Davenport. We at Forrester Research indeed see the same trend, where more advanced enterprises are starting to venture into combining reporting and analytics with decision management. In my point of view, this breaks down into at least two categories:
Automated (machine) vs. non automated (human) decisions, and
Decisions that involve structured (rules and workflows) and unstructured (collaboration) processes
I know, I know, this is what analysts do. But I personally would never want to get involved in doing a BI market size – it’s open game for serious critique. Here are some of the reasons, but the main one is a good old “garbage in garbage out.” I am not aware of any BI market size study that took into account the following questions:
What portion of the DBMS market (DW, DBMS OLAP) do you attribute to BI?
What portion of the BPM market (BAM, process dashboards, etc.) do you attribute to BI?
What portion of the ERP market (with built-in BI apps, such as Lawson, Infor, etc.) do you attribute to BI?
What portion of the portal market (SharePoint is the best example) do you attribute to BI?
What portion of the search market (Endeca, Google Analytics, etc.) do you attribute to BI?
What is the market size of custom developed BI applications?
What is the market size of self built BI apps using Excel, Access, etc?
On the other side, what is the % of licenses sold that are shelfware and should not be counted?
Plus many more unknowns. But, if someone indeed did do such a rough estimate, my bet is that the actual BI market size is probably 3x to 4x larger than any current estimate.
Most companies are now building a social media strategy, with a presence on Facebook, Twitter and/or YouTube. At the same time there's much debate over the value of a "Facebook fan." In this whole discussion I was wondering which consumers are most likely to become fans of a brand. Our Technographics survey data shows that about 13% of European online adults have become “fans” of a brand, company, or product they liked recently. About 10% were interested in interacting with companies through social media but haven’t done so yet. The first group we called “brand fans,” the other “aspiring brand fans.” How do the two compare?
Aspiring brand fans have a more mainstream online profile: Half of them are male, and they are older in general. Brand fans, on the other hand, are more likely to be female, and two-thirds are younger than 35 years old. And 20% of these Europeans who are fans of a brand say they are more likely to recommend the brand that they are “friends” with to their network of friends over any other brand. And this is exactly where the value of the Facebook fan lies. As my colleague Augie Ray said in his blog post: "Facebook fans have little actual value until they are activated by the brand."
I just completed my second quarter as the Research Director of Forrester’s Security and Risk team. Since no one has removed me from my position, I assume I’m doing an OK job. Q2 was another highly productive quarter for the team. We published 20 reports, ran a security track at Forrester’s IT Forum in Las Vegas and Lisbon, and fielded more than 506 client inquiries.
In April, I discussed the need to focus on the maturity of the security organization itself. I remain convinced that this is the most important priority for security and risk professionals. If we don’t change, we’ll always find ourselves reacting to the next IT shift or business innovation, never predicting or preparing for it ahead of time. It reminds me of the Greek myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus was a crafty king who earned the wrath of the gods. For punishment, the gods forced him to roll a huge boulder up a steep hill, only to watch it roll back down just before he reached the top — requiring him to begin again. Gods tend to be an unforgiving lot, so Sisyphus has to repeat this process for the rest of eternity.
If my protestations don’t convince you, perhaps some data will. The following are the top five Forrester reports read by security and risk professionals in Q2:
So what does this mean for CIOs and IT, the custodians of enterprise technology architecture?
It is clear Jive wants to play with the big boys in the enterprise software space. To date, many Jive deployments have not involved IT. This ability to deploy its technology without IT’s involvement has no doubt helped Jive to this point. Of course, having market-leading functionality hasn't hurt. (Jive has featured highly in recent Forrester Wave reports).
At the recent Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston, I sat down with Jive’s new CEO, Tony Zingale, to explore the company strategy. From our discussion, it was apparent that Jive intends to compete for a big slice of the enterprise collaboration marketplace. Fundamentally, this is the right direction for Jive, but I foresee some big challenges for the company along the way.
Obviously, we got the shipment forecast wrong -- it looks like Apple is on track to deliver between seven to ten million iPads this year. People may have come to the same conclusion I did -- the iPad is an important executive tool, differentiated from the PC and the smartphone.
The iPad is my meeting aid. Board sessions, client visits, or internal operational reviews invariably turn to digital -- the iPad gives me access to that world. Someone refers to a client -- I can quickly look at their Web site. There's a guy sitting next to me from Goldman Sachs -- I quietly look him up on Wikipedia and remember that we met 10 years ago (and that he's running Carly Fiorina's campaign in California). A client brags about his company's iPhone app -- I can quickly scan it.
Phones and PCs don't perform well in this role. The phone's screen is too small -- and its presence signals that you aren't paying attention, you are rudely checking email. PCs don't work in meetings because the screen acts as a barrier between you and other participants. Using a PC in a meeting subtly lowers your status -- you devolve from thinker to clerk typist when you swing that screen open.