If you had asked me three years ago whether the mobile industry would become a free-for-all of innovation and opportunity, I would have been forced to sigh and say, "can't see how -- the carriers don't seem interested in unlocking that potential."
I would certainly have been wrong as Apple has so impressively shown with its iPhone strategy (with first AT&T's and now 100s of carrier's support).
After 21 months in market, it's quite clear that Apple is redefining its third industry: first the computer industry, next the music industry, and now the mobile industry. With 25,000 applications (yes, mostly consumer applications today) available on Apple's private store and a reported 800,000,000 downloads, the iPhone has become a new platform for innovation.
At least one major enterprise vendor -- Cisco -- now treats the iPhone ahead of BlackBerry devices as a tier one device, at least as demonstrated by its WebEx and Cisco Call Manager applications.
For those of you interested in why analysts write the reports they do and how they might have done things differently, our podcasts provide a behind-the-scenes look at what customer conversations, market trends, and other issues motivate our research.
I am writing this blog on my way back home from www.himss.org show in Chicago, while a tingly chill crawls down my back. It’s a creepy feeling of déjà vu. Even worse, it feels like the movie Groundhog Day where the main character keeps waking up on the same day, same date, never able to get to tomorrow. Everything he was able to achieve during the day is erased, and he has to do it over, and over, and over again. This was the feeling I got as I walked the show floor and kept asking myself questions such as:
Where are the open technology standards?
Where is the transparency?
Where is the common sense that business requirements, not vendors, dictate the rules?
This is one of the most frequently asked questions I get in my many interactions with people on the topic of CMDB. The short answer is, “A CMS is possible, but the common model of CMDB is not.” I have even been challenged on Twitter that CMDB is nothing more than an endless time sink (follow glennodonnell to see the threads). Sadly, this is a common perception that is fueled by the many failures resulting from an unrealistic view of CMDB as a monolithic database.
I recently gave a speech in late February on the above subject at the 14th AIIM ATM Executive Summit Agenda and have another one at a Department of Energy Conference April 9th. Two main themes hit home to me for how ECM can make us more green. Reducing paper in the office and increasing adoption of customer-facing transaction documents or E-transactions top my list. I will blog on E-transactions and our woeful adoption rates later — as the two subjects are quite different. Reducing paper in the office is being helped and will be led by the red-hot Managed Print Services (MPS) area. MPS finally made the mainstream press the other day as The Wall Street Journal article below will attest: Xerox Tries to Go Beyond Copiers’
If your organization is like most, printers, fax machines, and scanners seem to multiply magically without human intervention. Although companies often don't count the cost, the amount of money spent servicing such equipment that is aging or underutilized is astounding as well as environmentally taxing. By eliminating redundant or dated equipment, installing multifunction peripherals (MFPs) to replace single-purpose devices, and implementing central management and accountability, we all can become heroes, and help push green IT forward.
Office devices, for example, are quiet energy gluttons. A copier, two printers, and a fax machine consume 1,400 kWh of energy each year. But one MFP that performs all the same functions uses only 700 kWh annually. Multiply these savings across all of your company devices — assuming you know what that number is — and this is the energy you are wasting each year. More efficient MFPs should be a part of the plan.
CIOs’ business-IT alignment efforts and enterprise architects’ attempts to focus their architecture on business needs have one thing in common: they assume that good planning information is available from “the business side.” The problem is, the business folks don’t tend to plan too far ahead. And, when they can tell us about their goals and objectives, they don’t usually describe them in sufficient detail to allow us to cook up specific IT initiatives to move them forward.