I will be joining Forrester's Tweet Jam on Cloud Computing today to add some commentary on the differences we're seeing in attitudes toward "cloud" as a delivery model and in adoption across countries. Interest and adoption differs significantly across countries. While in most countries the primary drivers of both Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) are around speed and flexibility, in others the primary drivers are cost. Interestingly, in India and Russia, the No. 1 driver for IaaS is "improving disaster recovery and business continuity." IT decision-makers in those markets prefer to rely on those focused on delivering infrastructure than on their own datacenter, for certain projects.
As for inhibitors, the main concerns are pretty common across countries: security and privacy issues, integration with existing infrastructure and applications, and uncertainty around to total cost of ownership. While many are driven by the desire to move from fixed cost to rotating costs (capex to opex), they remain concerned about the total costs in the long-run.
Just when you were getting your mind around Social Computing, Forrester has concluded that Social Computing is a steppingstone along the path to the empowered era. At least that’s one of the findings you’ll discover in the new book Empowered, co-authored by Groundswellauthor Josh Bernoff and Ted Schadler, published today by Harvard Business Review Press.
There were certainly some compelling arguments made in favor of this approach — not the least being that it's a highly cost-effective way to provide improved services to taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill for government IT efforts. As an investor in government IT (I pay taxes), I'm fully supportive of anything that improves services and reduces costs!
One of the most memorable quotes came early on from Carl Malamoud when, in his opening keynote, he suggested, "If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can launch the Library of Congress into cyberspace." (See his keynote below).
I had the chance to sit down with Credit Suisse’s CISO and Head of IT Risk, Daniel Barriuso, to ask him a few questions about his role at Credit Suisse and his approach to security. Daniel will be keynoting this week at Forrester’s Security Forum, which kicks off this Thursday, September 16th. Here’s a sample of our Q&A below:
Why is a more holistic approach to IT security so important today?
[Barriuso]: Given the complex and fast changing IT security landscape, a holistic approach is key to being able to effectively understand the end-to-end threat landscape and manage it proactively. This entails planning for both current and emerging threats, identifying future trends, and making conscious decisions on the security investments required.
What were some of the most important lessons that you learned over the last several years?
[Barriuso]: A key lesson that I have learned through my career is that governance is the foundation for a strong IT security organization. Often organizations focus on technology and technical controls as the main driver to secure data. Instead, a top-down approach is required, beginning with the policy, governance bodies, and risk management framework.
What advice would you give to other senior security leaders who want to move to this more holistic approach?
Today, Forrester and Harvard Business Review Press released the print version of Empowered, a book by Forrester veterans Josh Bernoff and Ted Schadler. This book is a quick and worthwhile read for just about anyone who wants to consider the changing role of technology in the workplace. After several reads of this book, I have found that in addition to a lot of great statistics, quotes, and case studies, there is a valuable message for how companies MUST change their philosophy and approach toward new technologies in order to stay innovative.
As a quick example of how quickly the technology landscape is changing, stop for a moment to consider just how many times in the past few days you have:
Received an invitation to LinkedIn.
Seen a personal acquaintance using Facebook.
“Tweeted” or heard someone comment on “tweeting.”
Checked your mobile phone — or seen a commercial for a cool new mobile app.
One of the pillars of crafting an “ideal customer service experience” is to offer a consistent service experience across the communication channels that you support. So what does this mean for the service manager who needs to think about this problem from a pragmatic perspective? It means that:
Service agents must have access to the customer history across all interaction channels for a full view of the customer.
Service agents must use the same processes and have access to the same knowledge so that the service resolution process is the same regardless of channel.
We’ve all heard about ideal customer service — the mantra of customer service vendors as they tout their wares. But what does this actually mean? Service at all costs (ideal for the customer)? Service at minimal cost (ideal for the business)? Or does “ideal” to a customer service manager mean the ability to deliver “good enough customer service” — where the cost of doing service is balanced with the ability to satisfy and retain a customer? Or is it something else — like providing a customer service experience that parallels a company’s business model?
Think about Saks Fifth Avenue — High-style, high-cost apparel. You would expect their customer service to be in line with their business model: Customer service on the customer’s terms — where you can arrange a phone call with a shopping consultant. You can talk with them now or later, at your convenience. You can email them and they will get back to you very quickly, or you can chat with them at any time of day or night.
Now think about IKEA — the provider of “affordable solutions for better living.” You shop at IKEA because you are comfortable with serving yourself — from pulling furniture off shelves to self-checkout to assembling them yourself. And, IKEA’s service mirrors their brand. They have exhaustive web self service in a multitude of languages, a chat bot, some email support and limited phone support. You are not disappointed with their lack of white-glove service because you would never expect it from IKEA — it is not their business model.
I have discussed questions such as “Which banking platform vendor is the right one for a given financial services firm in its specific requirements context in a given country?” with Forrester clients for some time. Interestingly, the share of these discussions touching on questions such as “How viable is vendor X?” and “Is vendor Y the right one for a bank the size of mine?” is increasing. What is the reason for this?
It is clear that in such a global situation, the reduced deal numbers of many vendors and the economic trouble of some are reason for concern for many delivery teams making or supporting the long-term decision for a new banking platform vendor — particularly when preliminary findings from a Forrester survey show a new thrust for the renewal of the financial service application landscape. At the same time, banking platform vendors’ behavior is changing:
My research team’s charter here at Forrester is to “Predict and quantify growth and disruption in the tech industry.” That means we’re always on the lookout for the next big thing(s), whether that’s technology, economic, or business trends that will change the direction of the industry’s fortunes. So we spend a lot of time on primary research, understanding the requirements and priorities of key business technology constituencies like IT organizations, business leaders, and employees within businesses large and small.
And many of our clients in the tech industry do the same. I recently spent some time with Saul Berman and Ragna Bell from IBM’s Global Business Services team, which just completed its bi-annual Global CEO Study. It’s an impressive piece of research, with interviews of more than 1,500 CEOs from around the world about their challenges, goals, and values. One prominent takeaway for readers of this blog: sustainability and environmental concerns are NOT gaining ground on the priority list of global CEOs. Take a look at Figure 1: “environmental issues” are stuck in 7th place on the list of the most important external factors impacting the CEOs’ organizations over the next 3 years. So while we in the sustainability community think we’re making headway in corporate boardrooms, this data doesn't show much progress over the last six years.