Google Chrome OS - I told you so

The Google Chrome OS announcement is a 'I told you so' moment for me. Nothing pleases an analytical mind than when the prediction borne out of analysis turns out to be true. There are enough doubters, doubting motives, timings of this announcement. But I always thought this would happen. Google is not at war with Microsoft, rather it is enabling the uptake of 'the Cloud'. As for enterprises, I see every reason to latch on to this trend. This presents an opportunity for enterprises to free themselves from clutches of desktop OS, its incessant upgrade cycles, security vulnerabilities and limitations it imposes.

I remember a conversation I had with one of my friends regarding the same subject just after Chrome browser came out. When Chrome browser came out, every one was treating Chrome as just another browser and questioning need for one more browser. Then I had stuck my neck out and contended that it was not just a browser but a prelude of things to come. It was indeed a light-weight front-end to a light-weight desktop OS. I was not sure how fast this would happen. It looks like it is happening faster than I thought. And my second contention is that it will enable enterprises move to the Cloud, faster.

In my opinion the consumer market will be conquered by the smart phone and netbook. The enterprises on the other hand will only need netbook class devices than smart phones, but not with the bloated OS of yore. Chrome OS with a netbook class device will be a perfect choice for enterprises. Current legacy can be hauled off to cloud and exposed as a plug-in on Chrome browser. And there is no reason why back-end services, yet to be built and which will reside in the Cloud, need to be provided only by Google. In fact, this Chrome OS - with open standards based front-end, will bring in much more transparency and Independence from OS, for service providers. Chrome OS, in essence is taking desktop OS out of equation within enterprise IT.

Coming to think of Chrome OS, it has potential to change the enterprise IT, the way switching technology changed telecommunications. Now in the days of packet switched network, circuit switching looks so much of a retarded idea, even though it was the only possibility during initial days of telecommunication. But when packet switching became practical it changed telecommunication beyond recognition; changing the architecture and business models. Similarly a computing device capable of doing everything locally and storing all it needed - locally, looks so 'Stone' age in the age of ubiquitous network connectivity and elastic compute/storage capacity. In that sense Chrome OS with a browser front-end is set to change the architecture and business models of enterprise IT forever. Desktop OS had its run, now its time for it to move on and vacate the place for Chrome OS. Mind you demise of dominance of desktop OS does not necessarily translate into demise of Microsoft, the same way the demise of dominance of mainframes did not kill IBM.

Indeed we live in interesting times. We have an year to prepare and fine tune our strategies and architectures. Don't miss on this opportunity.

Business IT alignment: Who cares?

Business IT alignment is a topic that generates heated debates and outright ridicule sometime. There is a Gartner fellow, who declared, "None of you are in IT, all of you are in business". Then some one else claims why IT is so special, no one talks about aligning Finance and Accounting to business. The general feeling is that, it is a non issue.

I beg to disagree. All of these commentators are missing the point. IT and business need alignment, specifically because IT is not like other support functions of business. IT is not finance, accounting, HR or legal. IT IS special. And why is that so?

It is because IT is not only useful operationally or tactically, but can provide significant strategic and competitive advantages. It is not only useful in automating operations or producing relevant management information but also can add new market segments to business, open up new distribution channels, or sometimes add new lines of business. It is this capacity of IT that should allow IT to go ahead on its own strategic vision. IT going on its own and doing its own thing, is good for business. That unfortunately gives rise to issue of alignment.

Business leaders need to understand making IT just an 'order taker' for business removes any incentive for IT to contribute in this unique way that no other support function can. Enterprise IT function can use the building blocks available in market place to create the differentiators for the business. This unique function can not be totally trusted to a vendor.

This is especially true in case of banking, financial services and insurance sector, where essentially business is nothing without IT (and of course a lot of capital). Most business in this segment derive their USP from IT and must treat it as strategic asset (and most do). So when attempting to align business and IT, don't make IT totally subservient to business. There are multiple perspectives of alignment. IT being sensitive to business strategy is necessary but not sufficient. IT strategy must also respond to external IT world and bring relevant changes into business, whether dictated by business strategy or not. So business leaders need to be even handed and do a 'complete double loop' of alignment so that IT strategy has a chance to make difference to business, and IT is not just taking orders from business.

As business and IT strategies can be at loggerheads at times and that will make alignment difficult. But make no mistake, business IT alignment is required for optimal results and IT strategy need to be given some degree of freedom.

Retrospective

Here is a retrospective on some of the blog posts.
Incidentally most of them are also top content on this blog per reader's choice.
So if you are a recent visitor, there might be a gem you may have missed ;-)

1. Agile, iterative or waterfall
   
2. City planning and slum control
   
3. Centralised service delivery team
   
4. Requirements management is crucial
   
5. Challenges in using services as integration mechanism
   
6. Requirements elicitation
   
7. SOA in enterprises or Hype 2.0
   
8. BPM or workflow
   
9. SOA and demonstrating ROI
   
10. SOA Fable: Do you wear a watch
    

Open group conference

In these recessionary times, taking short term view and conserving cash is the mantra. However negligence of architectural matters and short term view, actually adds to long term woes and costs. The way you would not stop essential maintenance of critical components, you must keep maintaining your enterprise architecture. Architectural spend prepares your IT organisation for long term survival and efficiency. However winning this argument is not easy.

This week I will be speaking at The Open Group's Enterprise Architecture Practitioner's conference about my experiences on how to navigate architectural transformations through sanctioning processes in these tough times. There is another panel discussion on same subject. If any of the readers are around, I would be happy to meet up in person.

Oracle's Java

Normally when I refer to 'Oracle' on this blog, I refer to 'Enterprise IT Oracle'. This time I am however referring to Larry Ellison's Oracle Corporation on this blog. It is because its acquisition of one of the significant technologies of 21st century, viz. Java programming language and associated paraphernalia.

This is BIG. Large chunk of enterprise IT is done these days, using Java technology and it is assumed to be 'De facto' and 'open' standard. Now with Oracle's acquisition of Sun, the openness of Java is under question.

What should organisations with large Java investments do? Well IBM is one of those, with large Java investments. Most of IBM's Internet stack under WebSphere brand is based on Java. What would IBM do?

What would other hardware vendors like HP, Dell do? Do we see three hardware blocks emerging? Sun/Oracle, HP/Microsoft and IBM? Where would Cisco/Google servers fit in this scheme of things?

Continuing this analogy would we see three software blocks viz, Java, .Net and possibly IBM's own Java like technology (may be a rehashed EGL with its own byte code) emerging?

Will cloud providers be bound to one of these blocks? If these three blocks start erecting Chinese walls around themselves, in order to lock customers in, then how does one allow seamless movement from one 'cloud' provider to another?

What would be de-risking strategy for enterprises, to avoid a lock-in within one of these blocks, even in an on-premise scenario? Does MDA sound attractive now? Is it the time that enterprises start focusing on separating their intellectual property from execution platforms?

Interesting times. Time to activate your enterprise IT Oracle and see which parts of Enterprise Architecture needs re-looking.

To buy or to build, that is the question.

Buy before build, is the mantra you would hear more often in enterprise IT. Most analysts would support this line and will have manier reports proclaiming the benefits. However a few independant analysts, tend to put a rather balanced perspective on things.

It appears buy or build decisions tend to fluctuate from buy to build and back to buy depending on where the equilibrium has shifted. The market forces make sure no option remains attractive long enough to become a successful mantra for all the time.

Most enterprises manage technology life-cycle thru some sort of adoption models. These parameters must be aopted in such models, to inform the continuos evolution of to-be state of enterprise architecture. Evolution of Cloud Computing (or XaaS) is a disruption that should also be kept in mind, while building these models. As options are no longer just buy or build, but could be buy, build or lease!

I am listing a few parameters I think that are very important. I would love to hear whether readers would like to add or contest any of these.

1. Commoditised capability vs differentiating capability
   Does the system that is sought to be bought, represents differentiating capability of your enterprise or it is a commoditised capability? For commoditised capability you would not mind going for a commoditised system. Differentiating capability, you would rather hold closer to your chest.
   
   Consider the scenario where differentiating capability is bought. If you then want to enhance the capability, it may need some enabling in the system. That enabler is a valuable intellectual property which vendor gets for free. Not only that vendor will immediately proliferate it to other willing bidders.
   
   
2. Short term TCO vs life time TCO
   Short term TCO of vendor product normally wins hands down vis-a-vis buy option. But when you consider life time TCO, including cost to replace, there may not be much difference in TCO. It is because, for built systems you can let them decay and save some costs before replacing. Whereas in case of bought systems, you need to keep pace with changes thru (sometimes forced) upgrades or else face unsupported obsolescence (quite risky). This works in your favour especially if you are an early adopter and back the right horse. Then building may be better proposition than buying.
   
   
3. Sourcing options
   Vendor supplied systems normally offer more sourcing options but are not necessarily cheap. Built systems are slave to the people who built it and sourcing options are limited. But this does not necessarily mean costly. This depends entirely on circumstances of each enterprise. Especially in case of mergers, retaining talent to nurture the built system may not be easy. On other hand the vendor of a bought system may get bought over or go out of business, thereby obsoleting the system. Which in turn will reduce sourcing options.
   
   
4. Time to market
   Vendor supplied system's biggest advantage is time to market. But this can be realised only when the systems are used straight out of the box. It is rarely the case though. Minimally you would have some integration to do, worse you will have to customise the system extensively to match your requirements. This fits in with the first point above. If its a commodity capability, you would want to use the system as is, with minimal integration. If necessary change the organisation to fit the system. But when its a differenting capability that system support, you would end up doing heavy customisation and integration. This would negate any benefits of off the shelf system.
   
   
5. Time to respond to events
   This is one of the big issue with vendor supplied systems. Where they will provide periodic upgrades and in some cases respond to mandatory changes (imposed by regulation). They are not likely to respond to event which are significant for your enterprise alone. You are on your own anyway. If you have adopted the system for differntiating capability then this would be a big problem.
   
   

Of TLAs and FLAs

In my previous organisation every employee used to have a three letter acronym (TLA) made from employee first, middle and last name, instead of an employee number. There was an anecdote about it as well. The company's then chief, who is also called "Father of the Indian Software Industry" had actually ordered a four letter acronym (FLA). But the software that was used to generate those acronyms, produced a nasty one for the chief. (If you know his name, you can imagine what that four letter word would have been). So he ordered it to be changed to a three letter one. (BTW, Many happy returns of the day Mr. Kohli).

It appears to be going in reverse within IT. In IT, there were a lot of TLAs. ERP, SCM, CRM, EAI, BPM and SOA to name a few you may have come across. Of late however the trend is moving towards FLAs, what with SaaS, PaaS and so on. However the most enduring acronym which survived the test of time is neither a three letter one nor a four letter one. It is actually a five letter one - RDBMS.

The reason it has survived for this long, is because it is more than an acronym. It is a well thought out piece of technology backed by solid science. It is not just an acronym coined by sales and marketing guys nor an industry analyst. This technology has proven to be easily standardised, exetensible and serving the vast array of requirements some of which was not even envisaged when technology was initially developed.

Sadly same cannot be said of all the technologies you see around these days. Many of them are rehash of old ideas in new packaging. They rely on finding the right audience at right time to proliferate and thrive on inherent problems they carry to generate more revenues for their owners.

Enterprise architects need to possess the vision to see thru the marketing fluff and reach the bare bones of technologies they are going to employ. Analysts can help to an extent, but the generic analysis may not be completely applicable in your situation. You need to equip your 'Oracle' function with this capability.

IBM in cloud.

I read about Nick Carr commenting on IBM putting their infrastructure software in Amazon EC2. He is comparing it with IBM's disastrous decision to leave IP rights of Microsoft-Dos with, well, MicroSoft. Is this recent decision really comparable?

In case of PC, in hind sight it appears that IBM had erroneously assumed that their micro-processor based PC was non commoditisable, whereas Microsoft correctly judged that anyone could assemble a PC using off-the-shelf microprocessors from Intel. So Microsoft retained IP on software which it could use to monopolise the commodity PC market.

So the question in this scenario is what is likely to be commoditised? Are EC2 services that unique that no-one else could replicate? What is the barrier to entry?
Certainly not technology. If my memory serves me right, IBM itself is big daddy of virtualisation and what it calls utility computing. It had developed first hypervisor called VM CP, which used to run on S/xxx mainframes. In recent times, I remember using IBM provided Linux image on a mainframe in 2001 to do some personal project (I was trying to do some code visualisation into model using open source tools on IBM provided Linux image.) IBM had provisioned that image in 24 hours.

So what is it? My guess is IBM is using EC2 to hook users onto its IP and then move them to a different Cloud (possibly its own). I think IBM is still not worked out the business model around its own cloud offering for SMB. Not a bad thing. It will surely standardise cloud computing space and make enterprise scale software stack available even to SMBs. It might hasten uptake of private cloud offerings too. So everyone will benefit. It would be interesting to see how this works out in next few years. I am definitely going to watch the progress.

Darwin and enterprise architecture

Today is 200th birth anniversary one of the great thinkers of modern times. Darwin presented us with the theory of evolution, summed up as 'natural selection' or 'survival of the fittest'. We also know that applying Darwinism in all spheres (e.g. social sphere - a la Nietzsche/Hitler) is not a good idea. However thats what tends to happen when it comes to enterprise IT. The evolution of enterprise IT tends to follow, the evolution of enterprise itself. As enterprises evolve, different parts of its value chain become important and get more attention (consequently more resource allocation). This weird sort of natural selection leads to multiplicity of systems and infrastructure, which tend to overlap or in rare cases leave gaps.

Over a period of time, the architectural environment, may it be business, application or technology architecture gets contaminated. This leads to bloated cost base and starts affecting time to market for business change. Approaches such as portfolio rationalisation can restore order temporarily. But to retain some semblance of order all the time, a proper enterprise architecture function must oversee the enterprise IT.

However what I have seen happening in practice is that at best of times the enterprise architecture function gets tolerated at most, and given total short shrift during bad times (such as current times). Focus moves to doing change projects faster and cheaper. The old wisdom is however easily forgotten, in being penny wise on short term project costs and time lines, we ignore the pound foolishness of bloated cost base and compromised time to market for future changes. However I also tend to agree that business change cannot wait for the right architecture to be put in place first. Businesses normally have window of opportunity to cash in, and cash in they will - with, without or despite IT.

Thats where the concept of Enterprise IT Oracle comes in. The Enterprise IT Oracle will let IT predict the future as envisaged by business, and put the right architecture (with appropriate governance) in place even before the need arises. It kind of puts IT in an offside position (soccer/football term) so that when business wants to pass the ball, IT is ready to receive it and shoot it into the goal. It is my firm belief that without such 'Oracle' function, enterprise architecture functions in reactive mode will never be able to rise to occasions.

SOA - Dead or alive

I had doubted SOA hype years ago in this post about SOA hype. Recently a small storm was raised when Anne Thomas Manes of Burton group blogged about untimely demise of SOA. But curiously, I am not so pessimstic anymore. My feeling is that SOA as an arhcitecture style is now better understood for what it is, than a magic technology silver bullet intended to solve all of enterprise IT problems. This short post from Ali is quite insightful in that context. What it is suggesting is that SOA has moved on to next step on its evolutionary path. Which is a good sign.

I always believed the true value proposition for SOA was not sharing (a.k.a. reuse) of services, and definitely not cost reduction. As sharing is important for provider who has mass consumers adding further value to digitised services provided. In enterprise scenario this may not be of much importance, unless you are in business of provision of digitised services. But sharing was a necessary step before SOA moved on to next stage of evolution where it makes more sense for enterprises, which are not in business of providing digitised services to masses for further value addition.

This is because sharing of services requires service contract standards(WSDL) and service discovery standards(UDDI) albeit in weak form. It also needed mechanism, to determine what is to be shared and at what granularity, to be established. These standards and technologies are in place and mature now. With these in place, implementing shared service is quite straight forward. It also set stage for next step of this evolutionary journey.

The next step of evolution, viz. flexible services where flexibility is at hands of providers, is progressing as I am blogging. The charge is led incidentally by progress made in BPM world. The more we know about processes, process composition and orchestration especially in a human task centric processes, we will make more progress on flexibility aspet. It would throw up its own set of standards and technologies, e.g. BPMN, Services Fabric based on industry models etc. So having process standards and technologies create need for limited sharing of services, which now can be provisioned using standards and tools in place already. At this stage benefits of SOA start becoming visible for enterprises. It would show up as agile and flexible processes. Processes which can be measured, monitored and flexed easily. When this becomes mainstream then stage will be set for ultimate goal of SOA, viz. flexibility at hand of consumer (a.k.a virtualisation).

I believe for virtualisation to become mainstream we would need ability to procure, provision & manage services in a location independant manner(a.k.a. in the cloud). We would need some form of semantic compatibility guarantees on the fly (kind of expected in semantic web). At this stage of evolution we may also see an ITIL like methodology evolving for business service management. I also believe it is not necessary for all services to be virtualised. What services need to be virtualised in what context would remain a very specific decision for each organisation. (Or you end up finding your business getting disintermediated using the services provided by you).

So don't let all the doom and gloom news get on to your nerves. It may be just current economic climate reflecting in people's feelings. It may not be possible anymore just to declare an IT project as 'SOA' and get funding from business. But from an enterprise architecture viewpoint SOA looks well set to be de-facto architectural style of IT in future.

Enterprise IT Oracle revisited

This post is prompted by James' post about analyst community and their licensing practices.

My thinking is that analyst are resorting to these practices because they feel they are leaking revenue. The revenue is indeed leaked because of sharing of their intellectual property.

If analysts replace their current model with 'youtube' type of model, whereby users are required to connect back to central store every time user wants to refer to content. Then content from this service can be priced reasonably as there would be no revenue leakage and they can earn some more money by selling adverts on such a central store.

They can make this model attractive by different pricing options and it could be win-win for both sides. Wonder why no one from analyst community thought of this yet, as they are the ones analysing market developments!

Wider point is about idea of Enterprise IT Oracle that I had blogged about couple of years ago. What analysts create is insights based on raw data. Analysts make deductions after collecting data from various sources and then apply their experience and expertise to provide insights. No doubt everyone does not possess intellectual dexterity of an analyst, but a collection of people may be able to substitute for one bright analyst. But they would need access to data.

If enterprises could provide online social spaces like 'youtube' within their organisation to accumulate data and then let people provide insights or judgments on these, then the collective intelligence of work force may be able to offer analyst grade insights on data that enterprises have. If you have access to enough raw data within enterprise this is worth trying.