I have just read a fascinating post by Bob Evans over at Information Week entitled Shoot The Mantra: STOP 'Aligning IT With The Business'. In his article, Bob talks about two core concepts...
1. Traditional approaches to IT projects result in solutions that address yesterday's needs for the business and not tomorrow's because of a primarily internally focused requirements-set
2. To be successful tomorrow, companies need to look outside of their business and address the requirements of customers (and partners).
This whole strategy lends itself well to Web2.0 technologies and an Enterprise 2.0 mindset. Enabling a collaborative environment where internal and external users can participate in the business operations and have information delivered in context will allow the company to get closer to what their customers (who pay the bills remember) actually want and help define the future-state strategy in a clearer manner than in the past.
Bob goes on to say that 'this is a subject to which we'll surely be returning in the months to come' - we look forward to reading what else he has to say on this topic. The future of companies today (based upon current economic pressures) can be directly linked to how these very companies view their internal and external operations and communication channels. A company that engages its customers will be successful, one that doesn't is likely to fail.
Paul
Monday, November 17, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Don't Give Up
Recently there have been reports of a SOA drop-off in the face of the financial crisis. The stories here and reports here that since the beginning of 2008 there has been a fall in the number of organisations that are planning to adopt SOA for the first time. These potential late adopters seem to be delaying SOA uptake or flat out deciding not to adopt SOA. The two key reasons for not adopting SOA are, according to the the reports, a lack of skills and a lack of a viable business case. Interestingly the reports also show that European organisations have a near universal uptake of SOA, the US a moderate uptake, while in Asia there is a distinct lag.
Does this make sense? Why does Europe find SOA compelling while Asia takes a much more cautious stance? Do the reasons for not up-taking SOA (lack of skills and lack of business case) have any relationship to the financial crisis? Or do they have more to do with culture and phase of economic development?
It is interesting to me that Europe leads the way in SOA adoption. This trend is also evident in other areas such as enterprise modelling. I think it reflects the more structured European approach that appreciates coherent design and long term planning. This is in contrast to the more pragmatic shorter term focus of the US.
Many parts of Asia are in a rapid process of ramping up their IT infrastructure. As such they have a choice – do they go for a quick project win that gives maximum short term business return or do they invest in an architected approach that costs more now but less over the longer term? Many organisations are in the process now of regretting the first of these approaches. It would be a major mistake for organisations to sacrifice the long term effectiveness of their infrastructures for the sake of short term gain even though it may be understandable that they may think along these lines because
of the uncertain financial situation.
Below is a graph showing the long term cost of different approaches. Over the longer term SOA is so much cheaper. If organisations had embarked on proper architected approaches earlier they would now be reaping the benefits of lower long term cost and so would be at significant competitive advantage in these difficult economic times. This is because SOA is a very cost-effective way of developing new processes and composite applications without big spending on new off-she-shelf applications.
Does this make sense? Why does Europe find SOA compelling while Asia takes a much more cautious stance? Do the reasons for not up-taking SOA (lack of skills and lack of business case) have any relationship to the financial crisis? Or do they have more to do with culture and phase of economic development?
It is interesting to me that Europe leads the way in SOA adoption. This trend is also evident in other areas such as enterprise modelling. I think it reflects the more structured European approach that appreciates coherent design and long term planning. This is in contrast to the more pragmatic shorter term focus of the US.
Many parts of Asia are in a rapid process of ramping up their IT infrastructure. As such they have a choice – do they go for a quick project win that gives maximum short term business return or do they invest in an architected approach that costs more now but less over the longer term? Many organisations are in the process now of regretting the first of these approaches. It would be a major mistake for organisations to sacrifice the long term effectiveness of their infrastructures for the sake of short term gain even though it may be understandable that they may think along these lines because
of the uncertain financial situation.
Below is a graph showing the long term cost of different approaches. Over the longer term SOA is so much cheaper. If organisations had embarked on proper architected approaches earlier they would now be reaping the benefits of lower long term cost and so would be at significant competitive advantage in these difficult economic times. This is because SOA is a very cost-effective way of developing new processes and composite applications without big spending on new off-she-shelf applications.
My question at the bottom of all this is simple – if you are not doing SOA what are you doing instead? Are you just building systems as you need, connecting them as you need? I have always felt that asking for a business case for SOA is meaningless. You don’t ask for a business case to use an architect or have an architecture when designing a building. You ask for a business case to build the building. But once you decide that the building is viable you don’t then have a business case for actually design it. It is assumed. Why is it that we treat IT in such a haphazard way?
--Saul Cunningham
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Seven Deadly Sins of Modern Information Management
I was doing some research recently into Web and Enterprise 2.0 initiatives and came across an interesting article written by David Galbraith on his blog concerning the 7 deadly sins of Web 2.0. In his article, David describes these as...
1. Obsession with rounded corners everywhere.
2. Pastel colors.
3. Linear blends.
4. Fonts bigger than 15 pixels.
5. Avoiding tables, when they are the best solution.
6. Stretchable text columns that are too wide to read comfortably.
7. Ajax use that makes things difficult to link to.
...which amused me somewhat as it focuses on the presentation aspects of Web2.0 rather than the fundamental underpinnings of this technology which is supposed to make information access easier for all. I thought about my area of expertise, information management, and started to jot down what I think the seven deadly sins of this area are (for modern information management systems anyway).
1. Thinking that Information Management is a one-way process. In today's society, collaboration and participation are relevant to information management. It is certainly a multi-way process and all efforts should be made to introduce this philosophy wherever possible.
2. Not implementing a truly-integrated solution. Most organisations have multiple solutions that partly address information management for the enterprise. A modern solution should be truly integrated - both internally and externally, meaning that within its own environment the varying aspects of functionality should seamlessly work together and outside, should enable information from various sources to be integrated (or federated) into a common, single-looking solution.
3. Ignoring security, privacy and intellectual property. With collaboration/participation comes the challenge of security - both from a perimeter and from an information-protection perspective. Again, these areas should be seamlessly integrated (or made available) from an information management solution.
4. Forgetting that you have end-users. Yes, end-users are crucial to any successful deployment as I've said a few times on this site. Addressing end-user requirements and involving these people within the project/deployment processes will ensure success when rolling-out the solution. Addressing a modern approach to information access (particularly Gen-Y) is the way forward - highlighted by Lindsay Tanner in his interview with the Australian IT today.
5. Focusing on navigation NOT search. We used to think that implementing an explorer-like interface for information management was the right thing to do. It isn't! End-users won't always know which folder information has been stored in or the metadata applied by the original author so search IS relevant for an information management solution. Automatically applying metadata and/or extracting relevant information from the content enables any user to find information quickly and efficiently.
6. Not addressing the paper-issue. 20 years ago managing paper (or physical information of any kind) was inexpensive. Today, it is costing a lot of organisations a lot of money on a daily basis. The cost of managing paper within a process can be huge and the risk-exposure unimaginable in a lot of cases. Get the physical information digitised as soon as it arrives in your organisation and use an electronic workflow to manage the process for review/approval etc. Store the paper temporarily (30 days or so) then rely upon an enterprise-class archival solution that addresses your compliance and retention/disposition requirements.
7. Not addressing your compliance requirements. Around the world, government and legal agencies are regularly introducing newer and stricter requirements for managing information within an organisation. The process for storage, migration, retention and disposition of information can be audited in a lot of environments and organisations can no longer rely upon ignorance after deleting vital detail from their information management solutions - and yes, I do include your email solution here as well!
Hope that helps...
Paul
1. Obsession with rounded corners everywhere.
2. Pastel colors.
3. Linear blends.
4. Fonts bigger than 15 pixels.
5. Avoiding tables, when they are the best solution.
6. Stretchable text columns that are too wide to read comfortably.
7. Ajax use that makes things difficult to link to.
...which amused me somewhat as it focuses on the presentation aspects of Web2.0 rather than the fundamental underpinnings of this technology which is supposed to make information access easier for all. I thought about my area of expertise, information management, and started to jot down what I think the seven deadly sins of this area are (for modern information management systems anyway).
1. Thinking that Information Management is a one-way process. In today's society, collaboration and participation are relevant to information management. It is certainly a multi-way process and all efforts should be made to introduce this philosophy wherever possible.
2. Not implementing a truly-integrated solution. Most organisations have multiple solutions that partly address information management for the enterprise. A modern solution should be truly integrated - both internally and externally, meaning that within its own environment the varying aspects of functionality should seamlessly work together and outside, should enable information from various sources to be integrated (or federated) into a common, single-looking solution.
3. Ignoring security, privacy and intellectual property. With collaboration/participation comes the challenge of security - both from a perimeter and from an information-protection perspective. Again, these areas should be seamlessly integrated (or made available) from an information management solution.
4. Forgetting that you have end-users. Yes, end-users are crucial to any successful deployment as I've said a few times on this site. Addressing end-user requirements and involving these people within the project/deployment processes will ensure success when rolling-out the solution. Addressing a modern approach to information access (particularly Gen-Y) is the way forward - highlighted by Lindsay Tanner in his interview with the Australian IT today.
5. Focusing on navigation NOT search. We used to think that implementing an explorer-like interface for information management was the right thing to do. It isn't! End-users won't always know which folder information has been stored in or the metadata applied by the original author so search IS relevant for an information management solution. Automatically applying metadata and/or extracting relevant information from the content enables any user to find information quickly and efficiently.
6. Not addressing the paper-issue. 20 years ago managing paper (or physical information of any kind) was inexpensive. Today, it is costing a lot of organisations a lot of money on a daily basis. The cost of managing paper within a process can be huge and the risk-exposure unimaginable in a lot of cases. Get the physical information digitised as soon as it arrives in your organisation and use an electronic workflow to manage the process for review/approval etc. Store the paper temporarily (30 days or so) then rely upon an enterprise-class archival solution that addresses your compliance and retention/disposition requirements.
7. Not addressing your compliance requirements. Around the world, government and legal agencies are regularly introducing newer and stricter requirements for managing information within an organisation. The process for storage, migration, retention and disposition of information can be audited in a lot of environments and organisations can no longer rely upon ignorance after deleting vital detail from their information management solutions - and yes, I do include your email solution here as well!
Hope that helps...
Paul
Australian Federal Government and Web2.0
I read an interesting article this morning on the Australian IT website where Lindsay Tanner (Finance Minister) was quoted as saying "The rise of internet-enabled peer production as a social force necessitates a rethink about how policy and politics is done in Australia". He went on to say "In the longer term, governments will have to adapt to information's new online center of gravity."The challenge for companies like Oracle who provide Web and Enterprise 2.0 technologies to Federal and State Government departments is changing the mind-set that was established some years ago when EDRMS solutions were first pitched and sold. Departments brought off on the grandiose (post edit: meaning more complicated that was actually required at the time) idea that they would be able to effectively manage electronic and physical documents through a single solution - allowing their content-creation processes to be supplemented by formal records keeping procedures within a single solution. However, in a lot of cases - only the records management solution was actually implemented - the document creation environment was often deemed too-hard or unnecessary for the department and placed additional constraints on the information workforce.
If Mr. Tanner's approach is to be successful, and we wish him every success in what he is trying to achieve, then these departments have to truly embrace the thought that their staff and their customers (you and I) will require an easy-to-use solution that provides information in context and enables participation within the process. Sounds like a load of marketing speak? Let me explain.....
Ease of access to information requires some radical rethinking on the way that information is presented to the end-user. Simply deploying a solution that implements "Windows Explorer" on the Web isn't good enough and nor is a solution that implements itself as a raft of non-integrated silos of information. The Solution needs to be enterprise-class and needs to embrace and implement the Web/Enterprise 2.0 way of accessing information. Search rather than navigation is the key here and to make search work well - information categorization and classification needs to be automated and consistent. Users searching for information will retrieve relevant information based upon the terms that are entered or the keywords/tags selected. This is what we call information-context.
The context in which information is searched for should follow-through to the way that the retrieved information is presented to the user. If we take the tax office (ATO) as an example, searching for the term "Christmas Trees" could result in many fragments of information being retrieved from the repository(s). By providing context to the search, the results can be narrowed enabling the right information to be presented to the user - ordering by relevance. The user may be searching for the tax rules relating to the sale of Christmas Trees from a private residence - this is the information context and the end-user facing interface needs to take this into account. Once found, the user may want to start an online conversation about the tax-rules and this is what we call participation.
Participation allows multiple persons to collaborate on an initiative which may be as simple as asking a question to a government tax-advisor or as complex as the creation of a new tax rule within the tax office itself. In either event, security and privacy become a challenge if using some of the historic information management solutions or even through some of the latest offerings from information-management vendors. Security needs to be tightly integrated into any environment where participation or collaboration is enabled and it isn't as simple as introducing a directory-service with authentication unfortunately. When information passes through the traditional firewalls of an organisation - through eMail or through a Laptop being removed from site - there is a risk, and it is ever increasing seemingly, of the information falling into the wrong hands. Take for example, a government department who is working on a new policy affecting certain members of the population. The department is liaising with external organisations including lawyers, consultants and advisors. Information, and I'm referring primarily to documentation (Word, Excel, PPT in general), can be leaked to the public or to the press accidentally or otherwise. Implementing a solution where the control of access to this information can be guaranteed is a highly-desirable requirement when information-management requirements embrace Web/Enterprise 2.0. We call this Information Rights Management (IRM).
Mr. Tanner went on to say "that the Government not only had to adapt to a world moving online, but would have to do so at an ever-increasing pace. As a huge creator and manager of information with an obligation to be open and transparent, we have little choice."
We think that Mr. Tanner is onto something here, the government is the largest manager of information and needs to look to implement a more-open approach for the access of information - both internally and externally.
Paul
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Future of Education in New South Wales
Earlier this month I attended an AIIA here in Sydney recently about the future of ICT in the NSW Department of Education and Training. Speakers were Michael Coutts-Trotter, Director General of NSW DET, Stephen Wilson, CIO, and Pam Chrisitie, Director of the Sydney Institute of TAFE NSW.
Michael Coutts-Trotter was up first. He opened by saying that he had good news for the mainly vendor audience - I was there representing Oracle, I saw Microsoft, IBM, Telstra, Fujitsu etc... Anyway, the good news for software vendors, was that the department spend a lot on ICT and they're going to spend a lot more. A round of chuckles from the audience and we were off, first up? Social networks of course!
He said that when he is in schools he talks to the kids about which social networks they use as a bit of an icebreaker and the results... Bad news for MySpace. Facebook and Bebo are anecdotally more popular.
If there was one single thing I took from the session it was this, "The use of social networking software for teaching and learning is of profound importance to the department".
He went on to sat that "professional development" for teachers is key in order to, "equip our staff to take advantage of the technology." By the way, the "average age of teachers in NSW is 47". The Department are currently rolling out a Learning Management and Business Reform (LMBR) Project (powered by SAP) which will, among other things, deliver "principal dashboards" to enable a school principal to easily see and ask, "why is attendance in teachers A's English class different to Teacher B's English class?". He was then at pains to point out that these dashboards would not just about management by penalty.
As far as putting technology in the students hands he talked about 1:1 Computing, "we want to put a laptop in the hands of every year 9-12 student. Estimated to cost $2400 per student over 4 years". And NSW are currently seeking extra funding from the Commonwealth. Michael finished up by saying that "the job of leadership in a school - done well - is one of the most extraordinary things you can see"
Stephen Wilson was up next. Some of the highlights from Stephens talk were that the Department "process 55M emails a month - 40M of which are spam". He talked about the roll-out of gmail for student email, and said that would be complete by the end of the month. He also talked about rolling out an eBackpack in "early 2009", and that this would be "4GB of online storage for students and teachers". He also said that along with 1:1 computing the Department are "wirelessly enabling all schools with students in years 9-12"
Pam Christie was the final speaker, some of her highlights where around a change of focus for TAFE from "school leavers to job seekers and up-skilling existing workers". she also spoke of how TAFE are, "moving to a Virtual Learning Environment... including access to Web 2.0 tools, virtual worlds, rich media, content management and learning management systems"
All in all I thought it was a really good event. As a parent with a child going through the NSW Public Education System and as someone who's worked in IT for 20 years or so I came away with a real optimism for the future of teaching and learning.
Sean
Michael Coutts-Trotter was up first. He opened by saying that he had good news for the mainly vendor audience - I was there representing Oracle, I saw Microsoft, IBM, Telstra, Fujitsu etc... Anyway, the good news for software vendors, was that the department spend a lot on ICT and they're going to spend a lot more. A round of chuckles from the audience and we were off, first up? Social networks of course!
He said that when he is in schools he talks to the kids about which social networks they use as a bit of an icebreaker and the results... Bad news for MySpace. Facebook and Bebo are anecdotally more popular.
If there was one single thing I took from the session it was this, "The use of social networking software for teaching and learning is of profound importance to the department".
He went on to sat that "professional development" for teachers is key in order to, "equip our staff to take advantage of the technology." By the way, the "average age of teachers in NSW is 47". The Department are currently rolling out a Learning Management and Business Reform (LMBR) Project (powered by SAP) which will, among other things, deliver "principal dashboards" to enable a school principal to easily see and ask, "why is attendance in teachers A's English class different to Teacher B's English class?". He was then at pains to point out that these dashboards would not just about management by penalty.
As far as putting technology in the students hands he talked about 1:1 Computing, "we want to put a laptop in the hands of every year 9-12 student. Estimated to cost $2400 per student over 4 years". And NSW are currently seeking extra funding from the Commonwealth. Michael finished up by saying that "the job of leadership in a school - done well - is one of the most extraordinary things you can see"
Stephen Wilson was up next. Some of the highlights from Stephens talk were that the Department "process 55M emails a month - 40M of which are spam". He talked about the roll-out of gmail for student email, and said that would be complete by the end of the month. He also talked about rolling out an eBackpack in "early 2009", and that this would be "4GB of online storage for students and teachers". He also said that along with 1:1 computing the Department are "wirelessly enabling all schools with students in years 9-12"
Pam Christie was the final speaker, some of her highlights where around a change of focus for TAFE from "school leavers to job seekers and up-skilling existing workers". she also spoke of how TAFE are, "moving to a Virtual Learning Environment... including access to Web 2.0 tools, virtual worlds, rich media, content management and learning management systems"
All in all I thought it was a really good event. As a parent with a child going through the NSW Public Education System and as someone who's worked in IT for 20 years or so I came away with a real optimism for the future of teaching and learning.
Sean
Friday, October 31, 2008
Enterprise 2.0
We're starting to gain real momentum in the Australia and New Zealand market around Enterprise 2.0 and I thought it time to publish something to you around this initiative. Oracle, way back in the early noughties, started to look at the management of unstructured content to supplement its ability to manage structured information for the enterprise. This resulted in the acquisition of Stellent in November 2006 - yes, that is 2 years ago already folks! Since acquiring the Stellent technology, we've spent time and resource bringing ECM functionality into Fusion Middleware.
Over the past month or so, we have been travelling Australia and New Zealand spreading the word about Enterprise 2.0 and what it means to both Oracle and to our customers and partners.
The following diagram nicely details the four areas of functionality that we provide through Enterprise 2.0....
Over the past month or so, we have been travelling Australia and New Zealand spreading the word about Enterprise 2.0 and what it means to both Oracle and to our customers and partners.
The following diagram nicely details the four areas of functionality that we provide through Enterprise 2.0....
For us here at Oracle, Enterprise 2.0 means bringing together content management, web content management, community, social-collaboration and applications together in a single enterprise-level offering. We are the first to offer such a comprehensive platform around Enterprise 2.0 and we are very proud of this!
Of the four key areas, the Community and Social-Collaboration components will be of most interest to organisations looking at ways of better-connecting with their customers and partners. This isn't just FaceBook or mySpace for the enterprise - it's a whole lot more functionality around the way that organisations need to work and it certainly helps satisfy the Generation-Y employees coming into business right-now who have been used to working in a particular way with their information, either through higher-education or otherwise.
Oracle launched its Social-CRM solution some months ago, and this was the real first-step into this market place. We started to provide the capability for users of Siebel to link through social-community environments such as LinkedIn to leverage information within their processes.
Look out for more events and announcements around Enterprise 2.0 in the coming months.
Paul
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Let's hear it for those ACEs!
The appointment of yet another Oracle ACE Director in ANZ - Richard Foote and - brings the local number that I am aware of to 12 (out of a global 198) and this seemed a good opportunity to sing the praises of this important group of professionals.
According to the Oracle Technology Website, "Oracle ACEs and Oracle ACE Directors are known for their strong credentials as Oracle community enthusiasts and advocates, with candidates nominated by anyone in the Oracle Technology and Applications communities. The baseline requirements are the same for both designations; however, Oracle ACE Directors work more closely and formally with Oracle in terms of their community activity."
(For more, go to here:
But I think a better description is Richard's own at his blog:
"An Oracle ACE Director is someone who is not only recognised for past efforts and achievements but is also willing to commit themselves to ongoing participation and involvement in assisting the Oracle community."
Those who followed our Openworld blog posts would have seen that some of our Oracle ACEs in Australia are very active in the blogopshere - namely Chris Muir , Marcel Kratochvil and Alex Gorbachev and now Richard Foote himself.
But others of note include Connor McDonald, Dennis Remmer, Martin Power, Penny Cookson, Steve Adams, Steve Button
Tony Jambu and Francisco Munoz Alvarez - many of whom are well known names in the ANZ Oracle community.
These guys really are the elite of the Oracle Technology world and those fortunate to meet with them or see them present will be aware of the great value they bring the community with their extensive experience and understanding of Oracle Technology products and solutions. Its worth taking a moment to recognise the huge effort they make - above and beyond the call of everyday duty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
