We all know our current paper-based health information process wastes hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Transforming this into a streamlined 21st century electronic system will require moving though stages of maturity from paper charts to the cross provider electronic health record (EHR). And yes, Forrester will be publishing it's maturity model soon which hopefully will be more understandable then the health care bill. Our basic conclusion is that a narrow focus on electronic medical records packaged apps. or paper replacement technologies will fall short of stated goals. Meaningful use - as in qualifying for governement bonuses - will require a process –centric view and a portfolio of technologies including enterprise content management (ECM), business process management (BPM), analytics and Forms Automation. Our three phase maturity model will show how these foundation technologies help move through the phases most providers will transit to get to the 21st century health care system we all need. Stay tuned.
This is not really a new blog post. It's a relatively recent post that didn't manage to make it over from my independent blog. I wanted to be sure it made it to my Forrester blog because I will have lots of publications and posts on information architecture coming up and this was a post on my first piece in this series. So here's the original post:
In January, the lead-off piece that introduces my research thread on information architecture hit our web site. It’s called Topic Overview: Information Architecture. Information architecture (IA) is a huge topic and a hugely important one, but IA is really the worst-performing domain of enterprise architecture. Sure, even fewer EA teams have a mature — or even active — business architecture practice, but somehow I’m inclined to give that domain a break. Many, if not most, organizations have just started with business architecture, and I have a feeling business architecture efforts will hit practical paydirt fairly quickly. I’m expecting to soon hear more and more stories of architects relating business strategy, goals, capabilities, and processes to application and technology strategies, tightly focusing their planning and implementation on areas of critical business value, and ultimately finding their EA programs being recognized for having new relevance, all as a result of smart initial forays into business architecture in some form.
I get a lot of input into my research from speaking with software buyers and sellers, which I analyze and process to come up with firm conclusions and recommendations in my published research and forum speeches. I'm going to use this blog to air some work-in-process analysis, to solicit additional thoughts and information from you. Just recently, Ive been considering why people are talking about 'pay-per-use' a.k.a. 'utility pricing' for software, and to me, the disadvantages to buyers and sellers outweigh the benefits.
Software pricing should be simple but fair, value-based, future-proof and published (see The Five Qualities Of Good Software Pricing). Yes, a one-price-fits-all 'per user' fee isn't fair or value-based, but that doesnt justify the potentially horrendous complexity of tracking detailed usage. Role-based user pricing, such as SAP user categories, is a much better way to reflect diverse usage profiles.
Im not arguing against flexible, on-demand services, particularly for temporary needs, such as renting some CPU power for a few hours. I'm concerned about pay-per-use pricing models for regularly used applications. To me they would be:
"Well, as of this moment, they're on double-secret probation!"
Dean Wormer, Faber College
Recently I have had a number of conversations regarding the role of pre-moderation of internal social networks. Just by way of explanation, pre-moderation would be the approval of all content (posts and comments) prior to posting. Over the past several years and hundreds of conversations with enterprise clients, this has rarely come up.
Just to be clear, there is risk associated with enterprise social networking. There is nothing about social technologies that precludes requirements for privacy, security, maintenance of intellectual capital, regulatory compliance, etc. However, given the right degree of attention, these all are manageable. In fact, over time, social technologies will reduce the risk associated with all of these (more on that later).
OK, so if anyone can say anything at anytime, that's risky right? Well, in thoery, but in reality, not really. Remember, we're talking about internal social networks. Presumably, these are IT sanctioned, authenticated solutions. In other words, everyone knows who you are. And, we can assume that with some degree of planning and education, your users will be aware of the policies that govern the environment. And if you post something not within policy, well you get put on probation (or maybe double-secret probation). Animal House references aside, many a fine internal social networking policy begins with "don't do anything that will get you fired".
There are three key points here:
One, provide a sanctioned solution for your organization because if you don't they may well find something on their own and that could be a whole different kind of trouble.
Total dollar loss from all referred cases was $559.7 million, **up over 110%** from 2008
Of the top five categories of offenses, identity thieft ranked second, at 14.1% of complaints; computer fraud (destruction/damage/vandalism of property) ranked fifth, at 7.9% of complaints.
The security industry readily admits that cyber-criminals are evolving their attack tactics faster than we’re evolving our defenses. How long can we continue to fall behind before we should start saying that we’re losing?
Guesstimates are often essential for market sizing and trending. To be useful, especially where primary data are lacking, they demand a valid conceptual framework.
Like you, I’m looking forward to the responses to Boris Evelson’s quick Web-based survey, which you can access from his most recent blogpost.It’s always a challenge to assess how truly pervasive BI is—and pervasive it could potentially become.
To generate a valid first approximation, Boris scoped his blog comments and quick survey to “traditional BI” applications (i.e., historical reporting, query, dashboarding). He scoped his estimate only to large enterprise and midmarket firms (i.e., those with 100 or more employees) and only to BI usage in the US.
In order to keep this task manageable, Boris excluded some use cases that are often included in the “traditional BI” category: spreadsheets and other “homegrown” analytics apps; BI embedded in line-of-business apps; and non-interactive, static, published BI outputs. He leveraged both public and Forrester-gathered primary datato gauge how many actual and potential BI users there might be.
Scoping it as he did, Boris estimated that slightly more than 1.5 million people in the US are using traditional BI applications, which is between 2-3 percent of the employees of BI-implementing firms. He suspects the actual percentage might be as high as 6-8 percent of employees, but he’s not sure. That’s why he’s running the Web-based quick survey.
As I close out my client inquiry records for the quarter, it’s interesting to review some of the common challenges risk management professionals are currently facing. I was impressed to see how closely the issues I deal with were covered in the month’s edition of Risk Management Magazine. In an article entitled, “10 Common ERM Challenges,” KPMG’s Jim Negus called out the following issues:
Assessing ERM’s value
Privilege (of access to risk information)
(Selecting a) risk assessment method
Qualitative versus quantitative (assessment metrics)
Time horizon (for risk assessments)
Multiple possible scenarios
Simulations and stress tests
Negus provides good perspective on these challenges as well as some ideas for solutions. The list is fairly comprehensive, but there are several other challenges that I would have included based on the inquiries I get. First and foremost, the role of technology in risk management – whether for assessments, aggregation, or analytics – comes up very frequently, and vendor selection initiatives have been plentiful since mid-Q4 of last year.
Defining risk management’s role within the business (and vice versa) is also an extremely common topic of conversation. As rules and standards keep changing, this will remain a top challenge. Other frequent issues include event/loss management, building a risk taxonomy, and evaluating vendor/partner risk.
Not too long ago, I shifted my role here at Forrester from Infrastructure & Operations to Enterprise Architecture. I was spending a lot of time looking at technical architecture topics and helping folks with assessing their infrastructure. Turns out, that falls into the kinds of things that EA folks are interested in as well. For the past few months, I've been focused on building tools and research that will help with assessing your infrastructure and getting it to where it needs to be in order to support future business demands. To that end, we've also begun research on best practices for making large-scale transformations successful. This could be moving from a mainframe to distributed systems, rolling out thin clients, or modernizing system management. Why do some organizations succeed at these types of transformations, while others take many years or fail to reach any consensus?
IT transformation is often likened to turning a large ship, due to the inertia of the status quo -- so many organizations struggle with these types of changes. I've even seen firms put the project team in charge of the "to be" infrastructure in physically separate buildings, away from the influences of business-as-usual thinking.
Come to think of it, that's a good idea. What do you think? If you've successfully completed a large IT transformation -- be it consolidation, migration, or something else -- we'd love to hear from you.
For those of you unable to attend, I will summarize some of the content that I presented on SAP’s overall growth and innovation strategy. SAP has a double-barreled product strategy focused on Growth and Innovation.
The Growth strategy rests heavily on the current Business Suite, which includes the core ERP product that is used by approximately 30,000 companies worldwide. SAP claims that it touches 60 percent of the world’s business transactions, which is hard to validate but not all that hard to believe. The main revenue source today is Support, which comprises 50% of the total revenues of the company at more than 5 billion Euros annually, and it grew by 15% in 2009. Other growth engines include:
In the continuous hype cycle that is all things tech, “social” has become the latest flavor of everything.
For sure, we as IT industry analysts are major players in this cycle, albeit sometimes inadvertently. Even when we individually attempt to provide sober, nuanced, balanced, fact-based discussions of some new “social” this-or-that, we’re often stoking the popular mania. The bottom line is that yet another analyst is paying attention and tweeting thoughts on some trendy “social” topic. This fact can and often does get wrenched out of context and escalated wildly in the minds of some people who follow us.
Social CRM is still climbing the hype curve, and events such as this week’s Forrester CRM Jam on Twitter (#CRMjam, Wed. March 24- 1-3 p.m. USA EDT) will undoubtedly fuel that combustion. Of course, yours truly contributed to the buzzing conversation last week with this blogpost on the analytics component of social CRM. I hope you found that discussion useful—with enough new information to help you align social CRM with your analytics initiatives.