The pace of technology-fueled business innovation is accelerating, and enterprise architects can take a leading role by helping their firms identify opportunities for shrewd investment. In our 2012 global state of EA online survey, we asked again what the most disruptive technologies would be; here’s what we found:
The results shouldn’t surprise anybody; however, if you are only looking at these, you are likely to get smacked in the face when you blink -- things are changing that fast. In the near future, new platforms built on today’s hot technologies will create more disruption. For example, by 2016 there will be 760 million tablets in use and almost one-third will be sold to business. Forrester currently has a rich body of research on mobility and other hot technologies, such as Forrester’s mobile eBusiness playbook and the CIO’s mobile engagement playbook. But by 2018, mobile will be the norm, so then what?
In collaboration, there are cloud vendors, on-premises vendors and hybrid vendors. Here's the thing; hybrid vendors are not really cloud vendors. What do I mean by that? Let's look at two different applications that both run as part of Office 365; SharePoint and Yammer. SharePoint is hybrid (Microsoft will happily allow you to choose between an on-prem or cloud) and Yammer is pure cloud. In many respects they are similar; both run in Microsoft run data centers, can be purchased on a subscription basis, are fast and easy to provision, provide automated upgrades, put reliability and security in the hands of the vendor, etc. Lots to like about running an application in the cloud.
Here's where they are not alike. A pure cloud vendor is fundamentally better positioned to gather requirements and deliver new functionality faster. Let's take a look at a new release process might work with a product based on a traditional product software develop approach, like SharePoint:
A business planning cycle determines new requirements that are critical to market success
A product planning cycle determines which features and functions are technically and economically feasible to build within the development cycle
Engineering builds a new release of the product
The product code goes through multiple release stages to get market feedback and test the stability of the new features and functions
Over the last couple of years, I've fielded a number of inquiries from Forrester clients who are trying to decide whether their company should move their email and other collaboration workloads into the cloud via Google Apps for Business or Microsoft Office 365. This conversation has gained so much momentum that I recently did a podcast with my colleague Mike Gualtieri on the subject, will host a teleconference covering the topic on February 26, and will soon publish a report detailing answers to five of the common questions that we get about online collaboration and productivity suites (which include Office 365, Google Apps, and IBM SmartCloud for Social Business). Fueling this extended conversation are business and IT leaders' deliberations over one question: Is there a right or wrong in selecting one vendor's offering over the other? I'll use a typical analyst hedge to answer: It depends.
There are interesting debates all around the globe about whether there is the need for a next gen EA framework. James Lapalme recently published an excellent article: Three Schools of Thought on Enterprise Architecture explaining the reasons of such debates.
In this article James identifies three schools of thoughts for EA, each with their own scope and purpose:
"Enterprise IT architecting" which addresses enterprisewide IT, and the alignment of IT with business.
"Enterprise integrating" which addresses the coherency of the enterprise as a system with IT is only one component of the enterprise.
"Enterprise Ecological Adaptation" which addresses the enterprise in its larger environment
We will be conducting research to look into how big data can be used for better fraud management. We define big data as data of Volume, Velocity and Variety. Our premise is that more and more granular data from more sources allows banks, insurers, government agencies, e-Retailers to cut fraud losses more aggressively.We are interested in your thoughts around this topic.
I’ve previously written about how modern application architectures are shifting toward compositional, service-oriented architectures — “for real” this time. RESTful services using XML or JSON payloads proliferate because they’re easy for developers of omnichannel clients to use on virtually any device they need to support. It doesn’t matter if they’re building native apps in Objective C or hybrid apps with Cordova — if they can get an open web API call, it’s good enough to move forward.
This shift to web APIs and modern applications means that companies have to shift their API management strategy as well. They need to 1) create the web APIs and 2) create a life cycle to manage them. It’s this life-cycle element that’s conceptually distinct from traditional SOA governance solutions. For one thing, the services live on the open bus of the Internet and carrier networks. Another difference is that web APIs are increasingly made availabe to third-party developers. They may be part of a newly formed developer community, or they may support the growing number of digital agencies and mobile specialist firms that your company uses to supplement development projects. Security and access models are different (e.g., OAuth 2), provisioning access to APIs needs to support light-touch approval workflows, sandboxes where developers can test their calls are important, and analytics that detail call volume and how developers are using APIs are must-have capabilities. Above all, a developer portal that provides good documentation, example code, and quick time-to-value are important if you want to attract and keep developers.
As businesses get larger, and the need for effective alignment of the business with technology capabilities grows, enterprise architecture becomes an essential competency. But in China, many CIOs are struggling with setting up a high-performance enterprise architecture program to support their business strategies in a disruptive market landscape. This seems equally true for state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and multinational companies (MNCs).
To gain a better understanding of the problem, I had an interesting conversation with Le Yao, general secretary of Center for Informatization and Information Management (CIIM) and director of the CIO program at Peking University. Le Yao is one of the first pioneers introducing The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) into China to help address the above challenges. I believe that the five-year journey of TOGAF in China is just an early beginning for EA, and companies in the China market need relevant EA insights to help them support their business:
Taking an EA course is one thing; practicing EA is something else. Companies taking TOGAF courses in China seem to be aiming more at sales enablement than practicing EA internally. MNCs like IBM, Accenture, and HP are more likely to try to infuse the essence of the methodology into their PowerPoint slides for marketing and/or bidding purposes; IBM has also invited channel partners such as Neusoft, Digital China, CS&S, and Asiainfo to take the training.
TOGAF is too high-level to be relevant. End user trainees learning the enterprise architecture framework that Yao’s team introduced in China in 2007 found it to be too high-level and conceptual. Also, the trainers only went through what was written in the textbook without using industry-specific cases or practice-related information — making the training less relevant and difficult to apply.
Thirty software product members of NASSCOM, the industry association for the IT BPO sector in India, announced that they would form a group to expand the software ecosystem in India: the Indian Software Product Industry Round Table, or iSPIRT. The key driver behind this development appears to be NASSCOM’s limited focus on software product companies in India. iSPIRT plans to:
Convert ideas into policy proposals to take to government stakeholders
Enable product startups to discuss issues through a dedicated platform (productnation.in)
Create awareness for the adoption of software products within the Indian SMB sector
Work with NASSCOM and other industry associations to provide a platform for product start-ups
The word 'transformation' is probably one of the most overused words in business and IT. I put my hands up and confess that in the past, as an enterprise management consultant, I have tagged IT management solution projects as 'transformations' as it just sounds so much sexier than the word 'change' or 'implementation'. Come on, you have to agree it does, doesn't it? But my call to you today is to help Forrester to eradicate the abuse of this word during 2013.
How can I help? We are currently working on The I&O Practice Playbook at Forrester which looks to address the I&O organisation of the future in terms of its people, process, technology and culture. Before I go on any further, I am going to say that in order to get to this 'future', I&O organisations really do need to go through true 'transformation' which can be defined as:
A major shift in people, processes, technology and culture. An example is an IT organization which wants to transform to be more customer-centric. The vision to be customer-centric will potentially require a change to people (skills, recruitment etc), process (structure, activities, measurement etc) technology (end-user, infrastructure etc) and culture (fostering customer-centricity).