The Forrester Blog For Information & Knowledge Management Professionals

Data management

October 27, 2008

Governance Risk Compliance Agenda....Critical in Turbulent Economy, But Conspicuously Missing from IBM’s IOD Go-To-Market Message

Jameskobielus

By James Kobielus

If it’s October, it must be time for IBM’s annual Information On Demand (IOD) conference. Initiated 3 years ago, IOD has become an indispensable event for any Information and Knowledge Management (I&KM) professional who has deployed IBM’s sprawling data management solution portfolio.

And IBM doesn’t disappoint: each annual conference is jampacked with important announcements that improve the vendor’s positioning in the forefront of today’s information-driven economy. If anything, IOD has become so crowded with IBM announcements that some important events or themes can easily be overlooked or given less emphasis than they deserve.

IBM realizes this, which is why the vendor works hard in advance of the show to define a coherent set of themes that not only address key customer requirements but also tie to key new product initiatives or releases. This year, that overarching theme is “Information Agenda,” which, you’ll notice, I blogged on several weeks ago. At heart, Information Agenda refers to IBM’s IOD solution focus: positioning its offerings as key customer enablers for business agility, transformation, optimization, and efficiency.

It’s a great theme: very empowering, hopeful, and solution-focused. But, sitting here at IOD, it occurs to me that another key theme is looming in the background, threatening to eclipse it all. The approaching storm is the worldwide financial meltdown, economic slowdown, and the very real likelihood of sharp cuts in IT budgets everywhere. It manifests itself in the increased economic volatility and risk we all face, and for which we’re all trying to hedge all of our strategies and plans. It’s clamping down on us in the increasing government regulation, control, and monitoring being imposed on a growing swath of the world economy. It will result in government-mandated deployment of governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) solutions, which will need to leverage companies’ investments in business intelligence (BI), performance management, and data warehousing (DW) solutions.

Oddly, IBM paid precious little attention to GRC at this year’s IOD--though its Cognos group rolled out  enhancements to its financial performance analytics portfolio,  its enterprise content management (ECM) portfolio enhanced its e-discovery and records management features, and it deepened its already comprehensive Optim portfolio for information lifecycle management (ILM).

And it’s not as if IBM has no GRC strategy. On previous occasions, IBM has put forth a credible strategy that ties its ECM, identity management, and other offerings into a portfolio that is roughly on a function par with Oracle, SAP, and other diversified software vendor.

But not at this year’s IOD. To IBM’s credit, many of their execs discussed the economic climate soberly and insightfully. But nobody, it seemed, wanted to rain on the IOD parade--in which the sunny “business optimization” theme prevailed--by bringing the teeth-gritting GRC theme into it in any way.

My primary beef with Information Agenda? As noted in that previous post, it’s a bit too vague, and a tad too blandly optimistic. Yes, there are always business opportunities, but we’re now in a business landscape where the threats are even more salient.

So, IBM, let’s also discuss customers’ Governance Agendas....their Risk Agendas...their Compliance Agendas...their Demonstrate-to-the-Feds-That-Our-Books-Are-Shipshape Agendas...their Son-of-SarbOx Agendas...their Survive-and-Avoid-Government-Takeover Agendas. How does the IOD portfolio support those agendas?

The big bad recession. Everybody from Ben Bernanke on down says it’s here or coming soon. So why not address it head-on, soberly, with solutions, or, at the very least, approaches that leverage solutions in which customers have already invested?

On a related note, IBM failed to fully address another key concern in a sour economy: cutting IT costs without compromising investments in core BI, analytics, and operational data assets. On the DW appliance side of the equation, IBM did not present a strategic response to recent announcements by Oracle and Teradata, under which those competitors are now providing highly affordable petabyte-scale DW solutions. IBM has strong DW appliance offerings in its InfoSphere Balanced Warehouse portfolio, but it had no new announcements that match Oracle’s and Teradata’s big splashes.

So, if anything, those were the prime disappointments at this year’s IOD show. It was a missed opportunity for IBM both to counter the competition and also address a key concern of its budget- and survival-stressed I&KM customers.

September 29, 2008

Agenda Politics -- Information Shifts The Balance Of Policy And Influence In Any Organization

JameskobielusBy James Kobielus

Yes, like anyone who got a liberal arts degree (me: B.A., Economics), I had to take Political Science 101. And like anyone who sat and thought about what exactly politics is, I soon realized that it's anything but a science. Some call it the "art of the possible," and that strikes me as exactly right.

Or, more to the point, it's the art of engineering consensus and coalition around issues, leading (hopefully) to effective action. Which brings me to the one useful kernel of wisdom that I took away from Poli Sci 101: that the most effective coalition builders are those who engineer a clear, compelling agenda for shaping collective action over the long run. Ironically, Al Gore may have had a greater, lasting impact on the world by losing the 2000 election than if the U.S. Electoral College, Supreme Court, and Floridian perforations had all swung his way. He spearheaded a powerful agenda-based coalition of considerable momentum, focusing the human race on our collective responsibility for global warming. And his chief tool was information: an "inconvenient" but totally science-based truth, reflecting the overwhelming consensus of those who study climate change for a living.

Clearly, no political agenda can succeed in the long run without a potent information agenda -- or, at least, people who are adept at using all available channels to build consensus and spur action. Honestly, when IBM started to use the term "Information Agenda" in their go-to-market messaging, I wasn't sure if I agreed with what they were doing. I understood the notion of, say, a "business optimization," "agility," or "green" agenda, because those terms point (albeit vaguely) to desired results. But information is a tool for building and maintaining an agenda -- it's not an end in its own right.

But then I realized that's not entirely true. Information technology is a precious corporate resource, as are the business intelligence and performance management applications that flow through those channels. So, in that very important sense, an "Information Agenda" makes great sense. Every organization -- public or private sector -- must build and sustain a strong IT, BI, analytics, and performance management capability. Sometimes those assets are wielded for corporate transformation or optimization (by Al Gores of the corporate world). And sometimes -- usually -- they're in the hands of grassroots personnel, who are simply trying to keep their organizations humming smoothly and on an even keel (hopefully, the next U.S.president can keep this big bruised ship of ours from capsizing).

Of course, we all recognize that actionable intelligence is fundamental. Every organization's Information Agenda must revolve around the need to keep that intelligence trustworthy, current, and relevant. So that all decisions -- no matter how humdrum and mundane -- may be grounded solidly in unimpeachable truth.

No matter how inconvenient.

September 15, 2008

Meet One-On-One With Forrester Analysts At Our Business & Technology Leadership Forum 2008

Consistently rated as one of the most popular features of Forrester Events, one-on-one meetings give you the opportunity to discuss the unique technology issues facing your organization with Forrester analysts. Business & Technology Leadership Forum attendees may schedule up to two 20-minute one-on-one meetings with the Forrester analysts of their choice, depending on availability. Registered attendees will be able to schedule one-on-one meetings starting on Monday September 15, 2008. Book early!

B

William Band
Research coverage for Business Process & Applications professionals

Customer relationship management applications, customer experience management, stakeholder alignment, enterprise CRM
See all »

Matthew Brown
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

Marketing and advertising, enterprise portals, intranets and extranets, information and knowledge management
See all »

Peter Burris
Research coverage for Technology Product Management & Marketing professionals

Enterprise marketing platforms, marketing automation, high-tech, application development
See all »

Back to top »

C

Bobby Cameron
Research coverage for CIOs

IT governance, risk, and compliance; the marketing of IT; serving the business; security and risk
See all »

Marc Cecere
Research coverage for CIOs

Designing IT organizations, changing the culture of an IT organization, IT strategic planning
See all »

Patrick M. Connaughton
Research coverage for Business Process & Applications professionals

Supply chain management services, supply chain management applications, enterprise mobility, RFID
See all »

Alex Cullen
Research coverage for CIOs

IT organization; IT strategy, planning, and governance; organizational design and change management, IT management
See all »

Back to top »

E

Boris Evelson
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

Information and knowledge management, business intelligence, OLAP, data warehousing
See all »

Back to top »

G

Chip Gliedman
Research coverage for Business Process & Applications professionals

Customer relationship management, help desk/service desk, customer service and support, packaged applications
See all »

Back to top »

H

Paul D. Hamerman
Research coverage for Business Process & Applications professionals

ERP, human capital management, financial management, business performance solutions
See all »

Brian W. Hill
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

eDiscovery, archiving, records and retention management, enterprise content management (ECM)
See all »

Bradford J. Holmes
Research coverage for Vendor Strategy professionals

Tech marketing tools and best practices; government, high-tech, tech marketing strategies
See all »

Back to top »

K

Rob Karel
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

Information and knowledge management, integration technologies, metadata management, extract
See all »

Rob Koplowitz
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

Information Workplace, collaboration strategy, collaborative platforms, SharePoint
See all »

Back to top »

L

George Lawrie
Research coverage for Business Process & Applications professionals

Retail information technology; consumer goods supply chain; pricing, promotions, and revenue optimization; collaborative processes such as trade promotions management and sales; and operations planning
See all »

Sharyn Leaver
Research coverage for Business Process & Applications professionals

Packaged applications, business process management, ERP, application strategy and selection
See all »

Craig Le Clair
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

ECM, BPM, output management, document processing services
See all »

Back to top »

M

Pete Marston
Research coverage for Business Process & Applications professionals

Customer relationship management, sales force management, software-as-a-service, outsourcing
See all »

Kyle McNabb
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

Information and knowledge management, document imaging, eForms and information capture, enterprise content management
See all »

Thomas Mendel, Ph.D.
Research coverage for Vendor Strategy professionals

Product portfolio strategies, mobile services, business service management, data center management
See all »

Connie Moore
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

Information and knowledge management, business process optimization, IT organization, enterprise content management
See all »

Back to top »

O

Leslie Owens
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

Information and knowledge management, taxonomy and classification, enterprise search platforms, text mining and analytics
See all »

Back to top »

P

Natalie L. Petouhoff, Ph.D.
Research coverage for Business Process & Applications professionals

Customer service and support, customer experience, customer experience management, business strategy for customer experience
See all »

Lisa Pierce
Research coverage for IT Infrastructure & Operations professionals

Voice services, telecommunications services by region, remote access infrastructure, networking
See all »

Tom Pohlmann
Research coverage for CIOs

Business models, high-tech, corporate strategy, tech sector economics, product and solutions strategies
See all »

Stephen Powers
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

Information and knowledge management, digital asset management, enterprise content management, Web content management
See all »

Back to top »

R

Stefan Ried, Ph.D.
Research coverage for Vendor Strategy professionals

Enterprise architecture, Service-oriented architecture, application platforms and programming strategy; application development
See all »

Back to top »

S

Ted Schadler
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

Real-time collaboration tools (instant messaging, presence, document sharing, etc.), cloud-based collaboration and email, mobile collaboration tools and applications, virtual worlds for the enterprise
See all »

Claire Schooley
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

eLearning, information and knowledge management, videoconferencing, Web conferencing, enterprise collaboration, new workforce, retiring workforce
See all »

Back to top »

T

Scott Tiazkun
Research coverage for Business Process & Applications professionals

Financial management; governance, risk, and compliance; financial management applications; security and risk
See all »

Zach Thomas
Research coverage for Business Process & Applications professionals

Human resources management applications, compensation, recruitment strategies, packaged applications
See all »

Back to top »

W

Tim Walters, Ph.D.
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

Web content management, enterprise content management, digital asset management, information and knowledge management
See all »

R "Ray" Wang
Research coverage for Business Process & Applications professionals

Enterprise apps and ERP, software contract negotiations, software partnerships and ecosystems, customer data integration
See all »

Doug Washburn
Research coverage for IT Infrastructure & Operations professionals

Green IT, IT organization, IT infrastructure and operations, IT management
See all »

Back to top »

Y

Gil Yehuda
Research coverage for Information & Knowledge Management professionals

Enterprise Web 2.0 and Social Computing; collaboration strategy, tools, and culture; virtual communities of practice; virtual team collaboration
See all »

Back to top »

April 17, 2008

Informatica Enters Identity Resolution Market -- Is MDM Next?

RobertkarelBy Rob Karel

Informatica today announced its planned acquisition of Identity Systems, a software company offering advanced entity resolution and matching capabilities, with a specialization in cross-language matching.

Informatica acquires Identity Systems from Nokia for approximately $85 million. Nokia purchased Identity Systems as part of its acquisition of Intellisync in early 2006 and Identity Systems has operated as a wholly-owned — and more important — autonomous — subsidiary of Nokia ever since. Not surprisingly, Nokia didn't see identity resolution and matching as part of its core mobile phone strategy and I expect the folks at Identity Systems will be happy with this change of ownership.

Informatica now enters the high end identity resolution marketplace and aside from powerful technology, Identity Systems brings to the table a strong presence in Europe and Asia, as well as a large government/public sector install base (e.g., think threat management). Informatica's primary competitor in the identity resolution space is a familiar adversary – IBM. IBM's Entity Analytics Solutions is based on technology IBM acquired from SRD in 2005 and Language Analysis Systems in 2006. Similar to their competition in the data integration arena, I would expect IBM to continue to grow their entity analytics business within enterprises with a large IBM hardware and software footprint, while Informatica will continue to do well in best of breed technology environments.

While the identity resolution/entity analytics capabilities offered by Identity Systems are certainly interesting, I'm even more intrigued by the potential impact this acquisition can have on the master data management (MDM) market.  Among other OEM's, Identity Systems technology is the core matching engine for a number of MDM vendors competing in this space including D&B's Purisma, Oracle, and Siperian. In my view, high volume, high confidence, highly configurable matching is critical to delivering a credible MDM solution. Informatica will wisely incorporate the easily embeddable Identity Systems' technology into its Informatica Data Quality offering. This will significantly enhance that product's matching capabilities by adding a hybrid of high power probabilistic matching and deterministic matching to Informatica's deterministic matching engine.

So does this mean that Informatica is entering the MDM market? According to Informatica, the answer is no. I certainly agree with that decision since Informatica is still lacking a number of other key capabilities expected of an MDM solution such as industry data and process models.  But does that mean Informatica won't enter the MDM market at some point soon? Don't bet on it.

If I were Siperian, I would be very interested in being acquired by Informatica. This acquisition would of course reduce the risk of Informatica voiding Siperian's OEM agreement with Identity Systems. But more importantly, it would provide Siperian with access to Informatica's exponentially larger global install base and would finally provide them with a sales force big enough to compete effectively with MDM's big 3 of IBM, Oracle, and SAP.  For Informatica, this acquisition would effectively fill in all the missing pieces it would require to enter the operational MDM market with significant credibility.

Now if I were Oracle, I would ask why I didn't snatch up this relatively inexpensive company first and embed these capabilities permanently into my planned MDM fusion strategy. The coopetition between Oracle and Informatica has been fairly amicable, but that could change very quickly if Informatica voids Identity System's OEM agreement with Oracle and enters the MDM market with a competing solution.

Stay tuned — this could get interesting.

March 21, 2008

Competitive Business Intelligence, Harnessed Through Collaboration And CEP, Harvested Across The Cloud

Jameskobielus_3By James Kobielus

Sometimes ideas for blog posts flow out of everyday conversations with colleagues. I want to thank Leslie Owens and Matt Brown for stimulating the following thought train.

The external competitive environment is the cloud where opportunities and threats hang, sometimes latent, sometimes looming. So it only makes sense that enterprises will outsource more of the competitive surveillance to the cloud of external resources, such as analyst firms, third-party market intelligence subscription feeds, social networking, Web 2.0, etc.

Of course, enterprises realize they don't dare outsource the competitive intelligence function entirely. That explains why they maintain research staff, tools, portals, and informational resources in-house. Mostly, these competitive intelligence teams monitor the prevailing market conditions that impact on their companies' core businesses. But, to a great degree, they also serve as an early-warning system helping their organization respond to specific breaking events -- i.e., the "disrupters" -- that threaten to capsize the corporate boat.

Recognizing this perennial "disrupter pre-emption" requirement, enterprises are concerned with best practices for setting up event-driven competitive intelligence operations. These best practices should help them survey the external horizon more comprehensively and proactively. Best practices should also help them foster, harness, and harvest internal collaboration among competitive-intelligence subject matter experts.

Essentially, competitive intelligence operations of this sort practice CEP in the following senses that I described in a previous post:

  • Each event may be quite complex in its own right, standing for a linked set of data updates, application state transitions, and process status changes (NEW NOTE: a "disrupter" is any extremely complex, perhaps way too vague, but still undeniably important "event" -- disrupters aren't "tagged" as such -- and they may not be easily identified before, during, or after the fact -- maybe, hey Leslie, on-the-fly social tagging is the best way to approach this squishiness).
  • Each event-reliant decision agent (e.g., end user) may access, interact with, and/or consume events through a complex interface (dashboards, analytics, semantic layer, etc.), across multiple devices (desktop, laptop, Blackberry, etc.) and have a complex event-enriched streaming  "experience" (NEW NOTE: competitive intelligence groups make use of the full range of portals, e-mail, IM, search engines, social networking, wikis, blogs, podcasts, workflow, alerts/notifications, etc.).
  • Each event-reliant decision agent may be a complex creature in its own right with its own complex, convoluted, squishy decision-making methodology -- i.e., an individual human being with their own habits and cognitive/psychological dispositions; or a group making decisions collectively and collaboratively through workflow, or social networking; or a half-human/half-automated workflow behaving in the herky-jerky manner one would expect from a split-personality decision agent; or a completely automated orchestration of applications triggered by rules engines, etc.) (NEW NOTE: competitive intelligence teams are very human teaming environments, at heart -- everybody is a "sentinel" on the "lookout" for critical events while others are "sleeping" or attending to something else).

Tying in another observation from that earlier post, I expect that CEP for I&KM (i.e., real-time, event-triggered, under-deadline, continuously-refreshing dashboard-sharing collaboration applications) will play a key role in event-driven competitive intelligence everywhere. CEP, hence BI, will be used to beef up organizations' in-house competitive intelligence/surveillance function, supplementing (hopefully not replacing) the outsourced competitive intelligence/surveillance they get from analyst firms such as Forrester.

In such an environment, the self-service, in-house research portal's the chief presentation layer, and BI operates as an intelligence source and/or target accessible via the portal, with real-time/near-real-time data integration approaches (e.g., ESP, CDC, MOM, trickle-feed ETL, etc.) providing the low-latency plumbing to deliver those feeds to the DW/BI/portal/preso front-end.

The BI vendors are laying the foundation for this emerging best practice. If you look at what vendors such as Business Objects are doing, they're making more external, commercial, competitive intelligence feeds accessible, via partnerships with content aggregators/publishers, from their platforms (e.g., http://www.businessobjects.com/news/press_release.asp?id=20070521_006524). They're also providing text mining/analytics-integrated tools (e.g., http://www.businessobjects.com/news/press_release.asp?id=20070924_006494) for searching across internal and external, unstructured/semi-structured data sources. And they're expanding the social networking and other collaborative features, and mashup offerings, for bringing together real-time feeds of internal/external data/events (e.g., http://www.businessobjects.com/news/press_release.asp?id=20080313_00001).

Business Objects is a bit ahead of the industry curve on all these things. But it's clear that, as market leader, they've laid down the chief challenge for all BI vendors, to make their offerings more pervasive in competitive intelligence use cases, and also to harvest the informational resources of the Web 2.0 cloud to the max.

March 19, 2008

Oh No, Not Another 2.0 -- Database 2.0? Data Warehousing In The Cloud!

Jameskobielus_4By James Kobielus

Boris Evelson's latest post on free BI got me thinking about another type of freedom.

Boris commented on the newly announced beta of a gratis, lightweight, Panorama-powered BI/OLAP-engine add-on to Google's hosted apps. You know, whenever anybody mentions BI/OLAP, I think of analytical databases, hence data warehousing (DW). And when my thoughts turn to DW, I often wonder when these dimensional data stores will be let loose from their earthly tethers and begin to float free in the SaaS cloud. This is no blue-sky speculation, but rather an inevitability in a world shifting to subscription-based SaaS for on-demand delivery of all infrastructure and application services. Where database services are concerned, this trend even has a name in popular circulation: Database 2.0 (aka "cloud databases").

Let it be known that Google is one of the pioneers in Database 2.0, though they haven't tooted their horn or done anything particularly special in this regard (smaller SaaS solution providers such as Trackvia, DabbleDB, and Zoho have more full-featured Database 2.0 offerings than Google, albeit not particularly BI/OLAP/DW-focused). A year or two ago, Google went open beta (still in that phase, actually) with a hosted database service called GoogleBase. Now, from what I've seen, GoogleBase is not a general-purpose transactional or analytical database. And it’s certainly not a DW or data mart in the clouds. Instead, GoogleBase seems to be an online repository -- or rather, depository -- into which external parties submit structured data for Google to crawl and index deeply for access from Google's big whompin' search engine.

Even more noteworthy is Microsoft's recent foray into the Database 2.0 space -- a move that some might consider a "validation" of this approach in the eyes of enterprise I&KM professionals. Microsoft has just rolled out a beta of its hosted SQL Server Data Services. The vendor has started to host services that have heretofore have been available only from SaaS partners. This is, of course, a key piece of the Redmond WA-based vendor's begrudging effort to push more solutions into a Microsoft-hosted SaaS cloud. However, from what I can see so far, Microsoft is simply hosting a subset of the functionality of its general-purpose RDMBS platform for OLTP and OLAP. However, Microsoft has not specifically optimized SQL Server Data Services for OLAP, unlike any truly scalable BI/OLAP/DW platform.

Back to Google for a sec. What I fully expect from them in the coming year or two -- and from every SaaS cloud everywhere before long -- are feature-complete, hosted, subscription-based DW services for high-performance, high-volume, complex analytics. Naturally, this cloud should be called DW 2.0. It should leverage the full virtualized, distributed, scalable, grid-enabled computing fabric that the Googles of this world can bring to bear on the very largest structured data sets, most resource-intensive query-processing tasks, and richest visualizations imaginable. Per Boris's suggestion, it could even serve as a supremely scalable BI, data mining, or predictive analytics "sandbox" for developers and power users who have no other speedy, cost-effective alternatives for procuring the necessary horsepower for various projects and production requirements.

I second Boris’s challenge: Google should consider integrating the Panorama OLAP-engine add-on (remember, it's just a beta) with a more analytics-enabling future version of GoogleBase (which is also still a beta). In so doing, Google -- if it eventually decides to go into full production with all this -- would be able to offer full-featured DW and BI services on a hosted platform that is as infinitely scalable as the concatenated string of Os inside the ever-extensible company name that displays within its multipage search-result screens. I also share Boris's concern that whatever hosted OLAP/BI/DW services Google eventually offers may lack enterprise-grade metadata management, data cleansing, data-source connectivity, security, and other key features.

I also expect Microsoft to evolve SQL Server Data Services in the DW 2.0 direction, an effort that no doubt would intensify if Mr. Ballmer succeeds in grabbing Yahoo. I'd like to see Microsoft cross-synthesize SQL Server Data Services with any hardware-partner-powered OLAP-acceleration approaches it may or may not be developing under its DW appliance initiative. At the very least, I'd like to see Microsoft provision some seriously scalable DW horsepower in its data center, perhaps through a partnership with Teradata.

Clearly, DW 2.0 services will need to be an order-of-magnitude more powerful than what we've come to expect under the first generation of SaaS-based BI/DW offerings on the market. Whether dedicated to a single customer's requirements or divvied up on a shared-tenant basis, DW 2.0 could be the biggest, baddest, most virtual DW "appliance" of them all. And it would be another key step in the progressive virtualization of the entire SOA stack, apps, middleware, hardware, and data services across the  Enterprise 2.0 or Web 2.0 fabric.

Oh yes, yet another 2.0 -- or two -- for you. Wouldn’t it be interesting if Google and/or Microsoft acquired a DW appliance vendor? I would not be at all surprised if announcements such as these precipitated from the cloud of pregnant possibilities.

And is it too far-fetched to imagine that Microsoft might turn around and acquire Teradata if the Yahoo takeover falls through? My crystal ball's still a bit cloudy on the matter.

But, hey, I'm free to speculate.

February 06, 2008

IBM Expands IOD Portfolio, Perhaps To The Bursting Point

By James Kobielus, Boris Evelson, Paul Hamerman, Rob Karel, Kyle McNabb, Craig Le Clair, Colin Teubner, Merv Adrian, and Connie Moore

Simplicity is bliss, but complexity has the upper hand in many enterprise information and knowledge management (I&KM) environments.

To keep a lid on runaway complexity, enterprise I&KM professionals often limit their strategic solution vendors and professional services partners to a chosen few. Typically, strategic vendors are those that can offer the widest range of best-of-breed I&KM solutions. Sourcing from a core group of solution providers also allows enterprise IT staff to obtain better licensing terms, reduce maintenance costs, and tighten cross-product and platform integration across diverse solution components.

IBM, like other all-in-one solution vendors, benefits from this enterprise sourcing best practice. Over the past few years, IBM has sought to deepen its best-of-breed status in the I&KM market by adding a growing range of offerings to its already substantial portfolio. Under the Information On Demand (IOD) banner, it has assimilated a wide range of solutions: some of which were developed in-house, while others were picked up through strategic acquisitions. Few vendors now offer as comprehensive an assortment of I&KM products as IBM. The vendor’s offerings range across such I&KM segments as business intelligence (BI), business performance solutions (BPS), database management systems (DBMSs), data warehousing (DW), data integration (DI), data quality (DQ), master data management (MDM), and enterprise content management (ECM).

However, comprehensive is not the same as comprehensible. For all its functional breadth and platform integration, IBM’s IOD solution set has grown so large that users may be hard-pressed to weave it all into a unified, enterprise-wide I&KM environment. Every new strategic acquisition by IBM adds more complexity that the vendor, its partners, and its customers must absorb into their strategic plans.

To IBM’s credit, it has steadily knit together its recent acquisitions over successive enhancement cycles. Slowly but surely, it has begun to assimilate Ascential, Trigo, DWL, Venetica, SRD, Unicorn, FileNet, DataMirror, and other acquisitions. It has done this through a multi-pronged approach that includes unified messaging, tighter cross-product and platform integration, and more cross-solution professional services engagements. The initial rollout of IBM Information Server as a common integration backplane in 2006 was a major step along that road.

This week’s announcements demonstrate how IBM is both adding to its IOD portfolio and focusing its go-to-market message. With these most recent moves, most of which were pre-announced in late 2007, IBM has taken its already substantial IOD value proposition and strengthened it further. Most important, it has finalized the Cognos acquisition, rolled out its converged MDM server solution, and rebranded its IOD offerings around the new InfoSphere moniker. Through these and other, related moves, IBM now offers I&KM professionals a robust range of best-of-breed IOD solutions that leverage its dynamic warehousing, middleware, metadata, and modeling tools.

Clearly, completion of the Cognos acquisition is the most significant of these announcements, both for IBM and for enterprise customers. IBM has presented a solid go-to-market message on the acquisition, illustrating how little ongoing product rationalization will be needed to fit Cognos into IBM’s multi-brand IOD solution portfolio. As we’ve stated previously, rivals such as Oracle/Hyperion and SAP/Business Objects have more product overlap in the core BI and BPS of the converging vendors than do IBM (which was not a major player in these niches before the acquisition) and Cognos (which was one of the recognized leaders).

This is not to deny that IBM and Cognos have functional overlaps in areas critical to a full-fledged BI/BPS portfolio. The vendors offer comparable solutions in enterprise information integration (i.e., IBM WebSphere Data Federator and Cognos’ OEMd version of Composite), extract transform load (i.e., IBM WebSphere DataStage and Cognos 8 Data Manager), and online analytical processing (OLAP) engines (i.e., IBM DB2 9.5 Cubing Services, Cognos PowerCube, Applix TM1). But with the formal close of the acquisition, IBM has clearly positioned these offerings for distinct customer requirements. Yes, it’s a complex convergence message, but IBM has done a good job of minimizing the inevitable marketplace confusion that stems from an acquisition of this magnitude. Indeed, IBM has a strong track record of integrating acquisitions such as Ascential, which gives us confidence that it will waste no time bringing Cognos’ solutions fully into its IOD stack.

Just as significant as the complementary aspects of the Cognos acquisition are the new solutions that the combined vendors have now made available to their customers. IBM has identified several new industry solutions, product bundles, and service offerings that are immediately available and leverage both its and Cognos’ technology. Furthermore, IBM has presented a roadmap that spells out its long-range priorities for product integration, convergence, and bundling across its existing IOD and service-oriented architecture (SOA) portfolios and Cognos’ established BI and BPS offerings. Of course, the roadmap is still sketchy in many places, and it’s not yet clear whether or how far IBM will evolve its Cognos solutions into a more comprehensive business application portfolio.

One of the most promising convergence themes that IBM has identified for Cognos going forward is expanded support for unstructured and semi-structured content in BI and BPS applications. Even in advance of taking that step with its Cognos brand, IBM has rolled out its Compliance Warehouse for Legal Control, an important new version of its DW appliance solutions family offering in the market that is geared to handling unstructured and semi-structured data for ECM all compliance-related content and process information. However, it remains to be seen whether IBM will now be able to catalyze its diverse brands--BI/BPS (Cognos), ECM (FileNet and WebSphere Content Manager), application data management (Optim), and text analytics (OmniFind)--into a unified solution portfolio for handling complex data types.

We’re also encouraged by the extent of IBM’s commitment to maintaining Cognos’ operating autonomy as a product group, as well as allowing Cognos to expand its partner ecosystem and execute on its established solution roadmap. Cognos customers should have confidence that IBM will continue to preserve and enhance their investments through growing integration into the InfoSphere and WebSphere portfolios. Cognos now takes its place alongside other solid enterprise-grade brands — including FileNet, Lotus, Rational, and Tivoli — within IBM's comprehensive solution portfolio.

IBM’s rebranding of its MDM, DW, and other (but not all) IOD offerings around the InfoSphere moniker should help clarify its value proposition for enterprises. The vendor’s new InfoSphere brand distinguishes those established solutions from its core DBMS (DB2 9) and from its platform/tool offerings (WebSphere). It should also help IBM to more clearly present its message that InfoSphere’s data integration, data quality, MDM, and DW solutions are heterogeneous and SOA-focused and can also be sold into non-IBM accounts. Of course re-branding aside, IBM will still likely meet resistance from non-IBM footprint customers targeting specific technology investments like ETL or MDM that want to avoid a sales pitch for a comprehensive IOD stack.

One of IBM’s most exciting strategic opportunities from the Cognos acquisition centers on business optimization—Forrester’s term for BI’s next generation. Business optimization combines operational BI with business process management (BPM) and business rules engines (BRE) to enable better decision making. By focusing on business optimization, the combined IBM/Cognos is in a position to shift BI’s traditional focus from historical reporting and analytics to predictive analytics and business transformation.

Though we’re positive on IBM’s recent announcements, we must acknowledge that the vendor confronts vulnerabilities of its own making. For starters, it appears to be ramping up its Global Services push for IOD, stirring up concern among some I&KM professionals who suspect that IBM wishes to sell them heterogeneous wares with “some assembly required” (i.e., assembly for the price of an IBM Global Services engagement). Also, adding Cognos to the IOD equation complicates IBM’s partnerships with Business Objects (now a SAP subsidiary) and with other BI and BPS vendors. In that regard, customers of rival BI/BPS vendors should hold IBM to its pledge to maintain SOA-based heterogeneous interoperability on a par with what it provides to its Cognos offerings.

IBM is without a doubt a best-of-breed solution provider in data management, but it still struggles to simplify its busy IOD go-to-market message. Now, as we move further into 2008, IBM will have to show how its comprehensive IOD family of brands can compose into a unified solution set that enterprises may deploy swiftly and with minimal handholding.

Just as important, if IBM continues to acquire niche vendors in BI, BPS, and other key IOD niches — and there are still many exciting startups on the market — it will have to figure out how to integrate it all without bursting its bulging portfolio at the seams.

January 25, 2008

Data Warehousing Appliances: Growing Bigger Than A Breadbox, Softer Than The Bread

Jameskobielus_8By James Kobielus

Now for my core coverage area — data warehousing (DW) — and the topic of my first Forrester research report, coming soon. (Everybody note: Boris Evelson is our lead BI analyst. But given that BI and DW are joined at the hip, I had to put in my two cents on the intersections of these (and other related topics — I also cover CEP for Forrester as it impacts information and knowledge management professionals).

The DW appliance wars are upon us. This can be seen in vendors' eagerness to slap the appliance label on a growing range of hardware-integrated solutions, most of which are much bigger than a breadbox, and also far more complex and costly — though, ostensibly, less so than the software-centric solutions they hope to supplant. Every vendor claims that its appliances are true "plug-and-play" solutions, though few customers are so naïve as to imagine that a complex IT solution can be as easy to install and setup as, say, a toaster-oven. In addition, vendors and industry observers are proliferating rival definitions of what constitutes a true appliance.

Depending on which vendor's religion you subscribe to, an appliance may come closer to one or the other end of the following solution spectrum:

• Simple DW appliances: Some DW appliances are simple "black boxes" that are designed and optimized for a single function or transaction type. Simple appliances, often packaged as blades or stand-alone assemblies, allow little if any modification or customization by the user.

• Complex DW appliances: Most DW appliances fall into this category. This sort of appliance is a complex assemblage of processing, input/output, storage, and other components integrated across one or more racks in an enterprise data center. Often, a complex appliance consists of one or more modular blades, which may or may not be able to stand alone.

Of course, there are plenty of opportunities for vendors to stretch the concept of an appliance to the breaking point. Unfortunately, one of the core features that most people associate with appliances — their physical tangibility — is starting to fall by the wayside. Increasingly, vendors are exploring the nouveau notion of the "virtual appliance." This refers to the concept of a self-contained software package that can be deployed rapidly to diverse operating and hardware platforms through virtualization technologies such as VMWare and Xen. It's not clear how these "virtual appliances" differ from existing development paradigms, such as Java, that also promise the ability to "write once run anywhere."

The DW appliance concept is softening along the human dimension as well. To further stretch the concept, more and more appliance vendors incorporate prepackaged professional services into their concept of an appliance. Some vendors are stressing global services as a core feature of their appliance offerings. According to this approach, the appliance is a broader solution package that includes services to help customers install, set up, maintain, and optimize the pre-configured hardware/software assembly.

CIOs, enterprise architects, and other professionals must wade through this welter of confusing, overlapping definitions to compare and contrast appliances against each other — and against the standard "software + servers + storage" DW deployment model.

A high-level guideline for DW practitioners: Use the same core criteria to evaluate DW appliances as you apply to traditional DW solutions: price-performance, functionality, flexibility, scalability, manageability, integration, and extensibility. Try not to invest any magic value in some solution simply due to the fact that the vendor has brought it to market under the "appliance" label.

January 24, 2008

BI's New Frontiers In 2008 And Beyond

Jameskobielus_9By James Kobielus

Business intelligence (BI) remains one of the most vital and innovative sectors of the data management arena. The past year saw BI achieve a new degree of importance in the solution portfolios of users everywhere. In fact, BI has begun to play into a much broader range of enterprise IT planning and deployment decisions than ever before. What follows are the most important trends that will continue to transform the BI industry, and add a new degree of complexity into decisions confronting CIOs, enterprise architects, and information and knowledge management professionals:

  • BI becoming SOA’s crown jewel: The past year has seen a rash of headline-grabbing M&A deals in the BI arena, with Oracle’s acquisition of Hyperion, SAP’s deal for Business Objects, and IBM’s pending takeover of Cognos—not to mention acquisitions of smaller BI and corporate performance management (CPM) application vendors by most of those firms. It’s far too easy to misinterpret these recent events as just more of the same M&A-stoked empire-building that we’ve come to expect from large IT solution vendors. What’s driving this recent industry consolidation—which is sure to continue in 2008--is growing vendor recognition that BI is the crown jewel in any comprehensive service-oriented architecture (SOA) solution portfolio. Though Oracle and SAP (and, to a lesser degree, IBM) already had decent BI wares in their respective SOA portfolios, none of them were on any enterprise’s short list of name-brand BI solution providers—until, that is, each of them decided to grab a leading BI pure-play. SOA suites cannot be considered feature-complete unless they incorporate a comprehensive range of BI features.
  • BI evolving into tailored business analytics: CPM—sometimes called “business analytics”—is rapidly becoming a key competitive front in the BI wars. Increasingly, BI/CPM vendors are offering tailored solutions for a dizzying range of horizontal business requirements and vertical industries. Vendors’ continued profitability also hinges on their ability to provide the professional services necessary to create, customize, and support business analytics for each vertical industry’s and specific customer’s unique requirements. Without a doubt, we’ll see further verticalization of product and service offerings by CPM vendors in 2008, which will provide a necessary hedge against the inevitable creep of commoditization into such horizontal analytics segments as financial, human resources, sales and marketing, and supply chain management.
  • BI going truly real-time through complex event processing: Complex event processing (CEP) promises business agility through continuous correlation and visualization of multiple event-streams. However, CEP has heretofore been conspicuously missing from the mainstream BI arena, necessitating stovepipe CEP implementations that are only loosely integrated with enterprises’ existing visualization, reporting, dashboarding, information modeling, metadata, and other BI infrastructure components. That will change big-time in 2008, as most leading BI vendors start to partner with CEP pure-plays, or acquire them outright, in order to strengthen their support for real-time event-driven applications. Indeed, we expect IBM to ramp up its CEP/BI integration now that it is acquiring both CEP pure-play AptSoft and BI/CPM vendor Cognos. AptSoft will also figure into IBM’s business process management (BPM) portfolio in support of closed-loop BI and business activity monitoring (BAM). We also expect to see SAP/Business Objects, Oracle/Hyperion, SAS Institute, Microsoft, Information Builders, and MicroStrategy venture into the CEP arena in the coming year. Likewise, it’s very likely that the newly independent Teradata, which has taken the lead in real-time data warehousing (DW), will snatch up a CEP vendor to build out its real-time BI portfolio.
  • BI bundling with DW appliances: Appliances have even begun to take up permanent residence at the heart of the enterprise data center: in the DW and BI infrastructures. Increasingly, vendors are focusing on integrating, packaging, and pricing their DW/BI products as pre-configured, modular appliances for quick deployment. These appliances consist of processing, storage, and software components that have been prepackaged, preconfigured, and pre-optimized for core DW/BI functions such as multidimensional online analytical processing (OLAP) queries, bulk data loading, and online archiving. The past year saw a growing range of DW vendors—including such DBMS powerhouses as IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft—reorient their DW/BI go-to-market strategies around the appliance model. In turn, leading BI vendors such as Business Objects and Cognos made a big push into the appliance arena. In 2008 and beyond, more and more DW vendors will pre-integrate BI solutions—their own and/or those of their partners—into their appliances. Increasingly, DW/BI appliances will be tailored, packaged, and priced for many market segments and deployment scenarios.
  • BI goes collaborative: Collective intelligence is an organization’s most precious asset. Traditionally, the BI industry has offered little to directly address one of the most critical components of group IQ: the collaboration environment. Instead, most BI applications focus on delivering targeted reports, analytics, dashboards, multidimensional visualization, and other key data to individual end users in isolation, rather than to larger business teams. In the past year, though, the BI industry has begun to roll out more collaboration features in their products—such as Microsoft with their new Office PerformancePoint Server 2007 solution--or, at the very least, to begin talking about new collaboration features to expect in the coming year. In 2008 and beyond, we expect to see the BI, collaboration, and knowledge management segments converge. Likewise, we expect to see such interactive Web 2.0 technologies as AJAX, blogs, wikis, and social networking revolutionize the BI experience. Many BI vendors now realize that decision support environments should allow users to access intelligence wherever it may reside, be it in data warehouses or in the heads of remote colleagues.

Going forward, Forrester will increasingly focus on the cross-synthesis of BI with all of these solution areas. We will provide best practices, methodologies, and tools to help customers sort through the myriad issues.

December 26, 2007

Master Data Management 2007: The Year In Review

by Rob Karel.

As 2007 comes to a close, I've decided to take a step back to reflect on what's happening within master data management (MDM). In early 2007, I published a market forecast for master data management that highlighted a $344M total MDM software market size (not including services) in 2006 with anticipated growth to over $2.2B by 2010. In this research, I also predicted the following:

  • A single technology solutions for cross-data-domain MDM would be 18-24 months away (translates to mid-2008 at the earliest).
  • Data management vendors of all shapes and sizes would try to convince their customers that they offer MDM solutions, further confusing an already complex market.
  • There would be new large MDM players entering the market to challenge IBM, Oracle, and SAP.

From a technology perspective I have seen positive momentum towards multi-data-domain operational MDM solutions, especially from vendors such as IBM, Initiate Systems, Oracle and Siperian. That being said, in 2008, IBM and Siperian will appear to be "first to market" with these multi-domain offerings (Siperian's MDM Hub was available in early 2007 and IBM's MDM Server available early 2008). Of course, both of these vendors will need to continue to demonstrate significant 'in production' customer success stories to validate their approaches and architectures. Also none of these vendors have effectively figured out how to converge the process and workflow-heavy functionality required to support traditional product information management (PIM) solutions and I believe that will be the Achilles heel of most of these vendors (I believe IBM would agree with me regarding this challenge, which is why its MDM Server is complementing — and not replacing — IBM's WebSphere Product Center for its first release).   

Unfortunately, I was more right than I even imagined when it came to vendors jumping on the MDM bandwagon. I have seen or heard MDM marketing from vendors specializing in data integration, business intelligence, data quality, data profiling, data warehousing, and enterprise search, as just a few examples. Certainly many (but not all) of these vendors can provide minor or even major functionality of value to an MDM ecosystem, but none provide the implied comprehensive MDM solution. It's almost as if these vendors believe that if they don't have MDM listed somewhere on their marketing collateral they will go out of business. Who knows, maybe they're right — but it certainly doesn't help information managers and enterprise architects trying to build their MDM strategy to decipher the market.

Regarding my prediction that a new major MDM player would enter the market, I'd have to say I've so far been proven wrong. Yes, Microsoft did acquire Stratature — but that was more of a BI-centric analytical MDM investment and doesn't qualify Microsoft as an operational MDM solution provider.   More recently D&B acquired Purisma, which is certainly an interesting turn of events where one of the world’s largest providers of B2B data firmly enters the MDM software application market. But don't expect D&B to steal significant MDM market share from IBM, Oracle, or SAP — especially since Purisma primarily specialized in customer data. If anything, one can argue that SAP is losing relevance as a major enterprise MDM solution since its focus still seems to be on mastering only data within SAP environments with less focus on the more challenging heterogeneous environments facing most MDM challenges. But stay tuned in 2008, I still expect the major players to be challenged with HP high on my list of potential entrants. Also, don't count SAP out too soon — with its acquisition of Business Objects we may see some renewed energy and investment into its MDM products.

While all of the product development, marketing, and M&A activity coming from the MDM vendors is interesting and entertaining, the most valuable and insightful information about the evolution of the MDM market comes from the Forrester customers I speak to every day. Unlike my coverage of more mature data integration technologies like ETL where vendor selection is the most common question asked, I rarely field questions about MDM vendor selection. Regarding MDM, these customers are more concerned about data governance, organizational readiness, architectural strategy, business case development, prioritization, and the biggie — do we really need to worry about MDM? If so, why?

What does it all mean?  I'm happy to report that it means you are asking the right questions at the right time.  Many MDM technology alternatives will be there for you once you're ready — the MDM vendors are making sure of that — but first be sure your organization is prepared to deal with the cross-functional and technical complexities of adopting a master data management strategy. Let's see what happens in 2008!

September 28, 2007

Data Quality A Thankless Task — Until A Crisis Arises

By Rob Karel.

Quality data in the enterprise is like breathable air — you don't truly appreciate it until it's gone. Many companies don't even bother to ask whether the customer, product, asset, or any other data it captures is actually complete, valid, and useful. Other companies leave the responsibility of standardizing, cleansing, and aggregating data from source systems to their IT developers, perhaps leveraging transformation capabilities within extract, transform, and load (ETL) tools to automate this hygiene process.

Then there are those companies that have felt enough data quality-induced pain such as wasted marketing costs or low call center productivity, and have invested in data quality software that allows for the advanced definition and maintenance of rules to standardize, cleanse, enrich, match, and merge. Once an investment in data quality software is made, companies hopefully have invested also in staffing at least a handful of data quality stewards or business analysts. These data quality professionals (DQPs) can translate requirements and perspectives of quality from the business stakeholders to technical requirements that can be implemented within the DQ software.

Unfortunately, these DQPs are usually treated like the red-headed stepchild — they are expected to do their jobs with minimal executive support, funding, strategic priority, or recognition. It is assumed that because an investment in data quality software was made, there should no longer be a data quality issue. This is of course absurd: The technology is only as good as the data governance and business ownership of the data rules and definitions. If the business does not actively participate and take responsibility for the quality of data, the technology will be nothing more than yet another IT expense.

These underappreciated DQPs often spend a large percentage of their time trying to convince management to let them do what they were hired to do — improve the quality of data — but can't move the quality needle far enough through their own grassroots efforts. That is why it's ironic and sad that often a DQPs best friend may just be a data quality crisis. When senior executives learn that they have failed a compliance audit, a customer is suing for violation of their privacy preferences, or they have made a very bad strategic business decision based on faulty data, the DQP is suddenly very popular and subsequently receives plenty of priority, funding, and support.

Thankfully there are many organizations today that do put significant investment and priority in data quality, especially those in highly regulated industries like financial services and healthcare. But for the rest of the pack, data quality is still just a nice to have. And to the data quality professionals working for these laggard organizations: Keep up the good work, your time will come!

June 07, 2007

Microsoft Enters MDM Market!. . .Almost. . . Sort Of. . .

by Rob Karel.

Microsoft today announced the acquisition of Stratature — a small software company focused on the analytical side of master data management (MDM). This is a positive development for siloed Microsoft platform customers, but is an underwhelming announcement for information and knowledge management professionals looking for Microsoft to step up and recognize their need to support heterogeneous enterprise information environments where Microsoft only represents one piece of a larger puzzle.

Stratature’s +EDM product is data domain-agnostic, meaning it does not specialize on any specific data domain like Customer or Product, but what +EDM covers in breadth of data domains it lacks in depth of capabilities. +EDM focuses on the analytical side of MDM, providing business views of information primarily through version-controlled hierarchy management and dimensional modeling capabilities. Although Microsoft has not disclosed when the acquired technology will be available, they have stated that they expect it to support its Business Intelligence, SharePoint, PerformancePoint, and Microsoft Dynamics’ ERP and CRM customers. +EDM is built on a Microsoft technology platform so integration shouldn’t be overly complex.

Stratature does not attempt to solve the more complex operational MDM capabilities — creation of a single master version of truth and real-time bi-directional synchronization of the master data across heterogeneous information environments. Instead of taking on the operational MDM challenge, Microsoft will continue to rely on small partners in this space — specifically Riversand for Product Information Management (PIM) and VisionWare for Customer Data Integration (CDI). Not surprisingly, both of these vendors have also standardized on Microsoft technology and primarily target Microsoft customers.

Many of Microsoft’s largest software rivals including IBM, Oracle, and SAP have had significant operational MDM strategies for many years with mature offerings in both CDI and PIM — all with visions of creating a single data agnostic operational MDM platform. Microsoft has always been conspicuously absent from this market.

To be fair, since Microsoft had chosen to stay out of this market until now I agree with their strategy of starting small and within their comfort zone before venturing out into the wild, wild west of heterogeneous environment support. If with this acquisition, they can address some existing demand of their customer, then it’s a fine first move. That being said, Microsoft needs to decide pretty soon if they want to be part of a software market that has the potential to grow to over $2.2 billion by 2010.As of now, IBM and Oracle, and many other smaller ISV’s in the MDM space, are way ahead in developing the most important feature in winning the MDM software wars: credibility.

April 25, 2007

MDM And The Information Supply Chain: Applying Supply Chain Principles To MDM

by Ray Wang.

Similar to demand signals in the supply chain for the auto industry, the flow of information via data management drives our ability to evaluate, decide, and act in our information worker economy.  Delivering relevant data to the right person, time, and place, in the appropriate context remains a key challenge MDM professionals encounter. Taking a page out of Japanese-born lean principles in supply chain, we can apply the following:

  • Eliminate redundant data via continuous improvement. Like overproduction and excess inventory, routine data quality efforts such as cleansing  is similar to eliminating waste (muda).  Instead of waiting for problems before making major changes (kaikaku), leading companies have call center agents who casually verify customer information at every interaction and supplier portals that validate shipping and billing information throughout each transaction.  These small improvements everyday area the heart of kaizen.
  • Flow data through the system pulled by the stakeholder. Lean manufacturers don't push inventory forward; they let customer orders pull each unit through every step in the value chain.  One car company streamlines the flow of test drive requests from the website to be delivered instantaneously to the closest sales person. Customer experience a 60 minute or less response.  Any process step that hinders a smooth flow is eliminated as waste (muda).
  • Push information quality processes towards perfection. Lean companies aren't satisfied to beat competitors, they strive for perfection by process mistake proofing (pokayoke) through the reduction of production time, errors, and inventories. Data governance and MDM efforts should focus on streamlining how data is acquired, cleansed and optimized for usage among stakeholders. This level of quality will deliver the real-time decision making that will improve an enterprise's operations.

Tech quote: "Life is like an outer join, you never know what row to expect..."
Real life thought: “If software vendors built airplanes, would you dare to fly?”

R “Ray” Wang | Principal Analyst | Forrester Research, Inc.
950 Tower Lane, Suite 1200, Foster City, CA 94404
rwang@forrester.com | (650/581-3808 | Fax: 617/613-3077 |

Warmest regards,

-R 

April 13, 2007

With IaaS, Are We Destined To Repeat The Mistakes Of Our Past?

by Rob Karel.

Information-as-a-service (IaaS) — the ability to deliver critical business information services in real-time, and in context of an existing business process — is piquing the interest of many enterprise architects and information and knowledge managers.  Enabling this capability could close in on those big hairy audacious goals that SOA infrastructure, Web service technologies, and other middleware offerings have promised.  (For more info on IaaS, check out the latest piece from Mike Gilpin and Noel Yuhanna “Information-As-A-Service: What’s Behind This Hot New Trend?

I have noticed there is something strangely familiar with the hype and IT-driven excitement around IaaS: it seems to parallel the enthusiasm witnessed in the mid-to late 1990’s around enterprise data warehousing and business intelligence reporting tools.  Back then, organizations spent millions of dollars to consolidate data from disparate systems into huge data warehouses, and then rolled out colorful and attractive BI reporting and analysis tools to business stakeholders across the company.   And then what happened?  The business did not trust the information delivered.  They still used spreadsheets to manually review information, and the ROI on the huge investment was not realized.

Data warehousing and BI initiatives remain extremely popular, but a few things have changed in the past 5 years or so to improve business usage. These include the better-late-than-never adoption of data quality software within ETL or DW environments to cleanse, standardize, enrich, match, and merge source data, and the more active participation of business stakeholders playing data stewardship roles. The introduction of technology focusing on data quality, and the organizational engagement of business stakeholders earlier on in the requirements process has led to greater confidence in DW/BI solutions.

I’m worried that IaaS may be heading down the same windy road; everyone in IT is so excited to build out SOA infrastructures and deliver information-as-a-service, but who is asking the question “will it be trusted-information-as-a-service”?  What information will be accessed by these services, and what are the guarantees the business will consider this information clean and useful?  My recommendation is to engage business stakeholders now to ask these questions, and incorporate whatever data governance and stewardship processes are necessary for your company to get the most value from your information services investment.

April 12, 2007

SaaS Applistructures Deliver On The Promise Of Tying Web 2.0 to Enterprise 2.0

by Ray Wang.

Walking out of the Salesforce.com event on Tuesday the 10th had me thinking about the promise of Web 2.0 for the enterprise via middleware, SaaS platforms, and this notion of applistructure. The thing that really struck home was not the utility computing model that Marc Benioff rants and raves about, nor the great drag-and-drop content management capability of Koral that was being demo'd. What struck home more than anything was how applistructure was taking shape via SaaS and how quickly SaaS could deliver Web2.0 capabilities to the enterprise.

Okay, let me take a step back, what's applistructure? Well, applistructure refers to the boundary blurring between business applications and infrastructure software. Originally coined by Ken Vollmer of Forrester (Giga) in 2003, the term is shaping up, especially with the rise of middleware platforms (e.g., IBM WebSphere "Blue Stack", Oracle Fusion Middleware "Red Stack", Microsoft VS.Net "Rainbow Stack", and SAP NetWeaver "Blue and White Stack") that are doing everything from being the appserver, delivering BPEL, modeling business processes, addressing content management, providing business intelligence, coordinating master data, solving identity management, etc.  SaaS itself is an applistructure and as these applistructures take hold in the enterprise world via middleware, the SaaS vendors including SFDC, NetSuite, and Workday, have the best opportunity to deliver on most of the collaborative aspects of Web 2.0.

Unfortunately for most enterprises, not much of the Web 2.0 impact we feel here in the Valley has made it into the mainstream middleware platforms. In fact, recent announcements of Lotus Quickr, SAP's end-user widgets, Microsoft Office 2007, and Oracle Web Center show slow to moderate progress in this arena. Hot for Web 2.0 for years have been tagging, mash-ups, social network, participation architectures, and the spirit of the individual and wisdom of the tribe. Though we're starting to see wikis, blogging, and RSS become the new collaboration standards for enterprises its really been the SaaS movement that's driving Web 2.0 adoption into the enterprise.

Similar to the shift in attitude on utility computing and the simplification of licensing and pricing to cost/user/month, I think we can count on SaaS to be the game-changer again. I eagerly await to see what other Web 2.0 innovations like the Koral acquisition by SFDC will make its way to the likes of SAP, Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM in this emerging solutions centric software world order.

Tech quote: "Life is like an outer join, you never know what row to expect..."
Real life thought: “If software vendors built airplanes, would you dare to fly?”

R “Ray” Wang | Principal Analyst | Forrester Research, Inc.

950 Tower Lane, Suite 1200, Foster City, CA 94404