What’s the future of the virtual conference?

I am in the middle of attending Microsoft’s Server Technology Business industry analyst event. I have attended this for many years but this year Microsoft decided that it would be a virtual event. Sessions would be streamed over the web to be watched whenever. One on one sessions were scheduled with executives and customers in 30 minute increments. There was one live session (slides over LiveMeeting). So, what did I think? I had very mixed feelings. I was happy to forgo a plane trip. It is much nicer to sit in my own office and sleep in my own bed. However, I don’t think that the virtual conference itself is ready for prime time. Here are the things that don’t work for me.

There is no substitute for personal interaction with people. When I attend an industry analyst meeting I pay attention to more than the words the speaker is saying. I read the body language. I want to understand how the management team relates to each other. I want to have hallway and lunch time informal conversations. I also want to be able to talk to invited customers informally.

Streaming videos for presentations are a wonderful idea but the vendor providing the videos needs to make sure that this works with many different networks and many different systems. I happen to use a Mac which wasn’t the system of choice for the Microsoft hosts. Even those using Windows and Explorer had trouble with the videos stopping in mid sentence. Even if the vendor tests out the videos internally, they cannot begin to guess the participant’s environment.

Will a typical analyst have the patience to watch five hours of pre-recorded videos? Not likely. I might listen to a video that I am particularly interested in (like cloud computing or service oriented architectures, for example). But I will not listen to all the presentations. There are simply too many distractions and too many things to do. That is the reality of my life as a researcher, analyst, and writer. The reality is that unless you present compelling presentations with information that draws me in you will not capture my attention for long periods of time. The context of this type of meeting hurts the  virtual conference. It is something like watching television. If you start to watch a program and it gets boring, you start to channel surf. If you expect the audience to watch from beginning to end you have to grab their attention.

The reality is you can get away with a lot more in person than you can in a virtual meeting. In an in-person meeting there is enough going on and enough possibilities of interaction that it works. In a virtual meeting you have to pay much more attention to the details. It is show business. The virtual meeting has to be orchestrated and managed so that the seams do not show. Microsoft had a good idea when they planned the meeting. They actually sent each of us a LiveCam so that speakers and audience members could see each other. It was never used.

I think that we will get to the point where we can have meaningful virtual conferences — someday. But they have to have the following characteristics before I will be enthusiastic:

1. Virtual conferences need really good planning and execution. It cannot simply be a disconnected voice with some slides on a shared screen. That is called a conference call.

2. Streaming or live video is wonderful but it needs to have the technology foundation so that it will work no matter what the customer/participant’s environment happens to be.

3. If virtual conferences are to work they have to be conferences.  I don’t think that we have good models for executing virtual conferences that work. They need to be electric, informative, and have interactivity.  Right now the virtual meeting is not a true model. It is simply old execution applied to a new idea.

I think that we will see the emergence of a true virtual conferencing model. I can’t tell you that I can visualize a virtual conference that I would enjoy. Like many analysts, I am not good at passively sitting and watching. I need to be engaged and part of the action. I am not sure how you do this virtually. But I am ready to be surprised and delighted since it would be great not to get on an airplane.

Five things I learned at IBM’s Rational Conference

I haven’t been to IBM’s Rational Conference in a couple of years so I was very interested not just to see what IBM had to say about the changing landscape of software development but how the customers attending the conference had changed. I was not disappointed.  While I could write a whole book on the changes happening in software development (but I have enough problems) I thought I would mention some of the aspects of the conference that I found noteworthy.

One. Rational is moving from tools company to a software development platform. Rational has always been a complex organization to understand since it has evolved and changed so much over the years. The organization now seems to have found its focus.

Two. More management, fewer low level developers. In the old day, conferences like this would be dominated by programmers. While there were many developers  in attendance, I found that there were a lot of upper level managers. For example, I sat at lunch with one CIO who was in the process of moving to a sophisticated service oriented architecture. Another person at my table was a manager looking to update his company’s current development platforms. Still another individual was a customer of one of the company’s that IBM had purchased who was looking to understand how to implement new capabilities added since the acquisition.

Three. Rational has changed dramatically through acquisitions. Rational is a tale of acquisitions. Rational Software, the lynch pin of IBM’s software development division, itself was a combination of many acquisitions. Rational, before being bought by IBM in 2002 for $2.1 billion, had acquired an impressive array of companies including Requiste, SQA, Performance Aware, Pure-Atria, and Object Time Ltd.  After a period of absorbtion, IBM started acquiring more assets. BuildForge (build and release management) was purchased in 2006; Watchfire (Web application security vulnerability and compliance testing software) was bought in 2007; and Telelogic (requirements management) was purchased in 2008.

It has taken IBM a while to both absorb all of the acquisitions and then to create a unified architecture so that these software products could share components and interoperate. While IBM is not done, under Danny Sabbah’s leadership (General Manager), Rational made the transition from being a tools company to becoming platform for managing software complexity. It is work in progress.

Four. It’s all about Jazz. Jazz, IBM’s collaboration platform was a major focus of the conference.  Jazz is an architecture intended to integrate data and function.  Jazz’s foundation is the REST architecture and therefore it is well positioned for use in Web 2.0 applications. What is most important is that IBM is bringing all of its Rational technology under this model. Over the next few years, we can expect to see this framework under all of the Rational’s products.

Five. Rational doesn’t stand alone. It is easy to focus on all of the Rational portfolio (which could take a while). But what I found quite interesting was the emphasis on the intersection between the Rational platform and Tivoli’s management services as well as Websphere’s Service Oriented Architecture offerings. Rational also made a point of focusing on the use of collaboration elements provided by the Lotus division.  Cloud computing was also a major focus of discussion at the event. While many customers at the event are evaluating the potential of using various Rational products in the cloud it is early.  The one area that IBM seem to have hit a home run is its Cloud Burst appliance which is intended create and manage virtual images. Rational is also beginning to deliver its testing offerings as cloud based services. One of the most interesting elements of its approach is to use tokens as a licensing model. In other words, customers purchase a set number of tokens or virtual licenses that can be used to purchase services that are not tied to a specific project or product.

The end of maintenance?

I admit that I didn’t read the whole article but then I really didn’t have to. I knew what Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce.com was trying to start. I remember many years ago seeing Marc at an industry conference where he proudly announced the end of software.  A nice marketing approach that definitely got everyone’s attention. Of course, at that time Marc was working on a little software as a service enviornment that became Salesforce.com. The rest is history, as we like to say.  Now, Marc is on a new mission to attack maintenance fees. While it is clear that Marc is trying to tweak the traditional software market I think that he is bringing up an interesting subject.

Software maintenance is not a simple topic to cover and I am sure that I could spend hundreds of pages discussing the topic because there are so many angles. Maintenance fees began as a way of ensuring that software companies had the revenue to fund development of new functionality in their software products. It is, of course, possible to buy software, pay once, and never pay the vendor anything else. Those situations exist of course. Ironically, the better designed the software, the less likely it is that customers will need upgrades. But, clearly that circumstance is rare.

There are major changes taking place in the economics of software. Customers are increasingly unhappy with paying huge yearly maintenance fees to software providers. Some of these fees are clearly justified. Software is complex and vendors are often required to continue to upgrade, add new features, and the like. There are other situations where customers are perfectly happy with software as is and only want to fix critical problems and don’t want to pay what they see as exorbitant maintenance fees.

Now, getting back to Marc Benioff’s comments about the end of maintenance. Here is a link from Vinnie Mirchandani’s recent blog on the topic.Marc is making a very important observation. As the world slowly moves to cloud computing for economic reasons there will be a major impact on how companies pay for software. Salesforce.com has indeed proven that companies are willing to trust their sales and customer data to a Software as a Service vendor. These customers are also willing to pay per user or per company yearly fees to rent software. Does this mean that they are no longer paying maintance fees? My answer would be no. It is all about accounting and economics. Clearly, Salesforce.com spends a lot of money adding functionality to its application and someone pays for that. So, what part of that monthly or yearly per user fee is allocated to maintaining the application? Who knows? And I am sure that it is not one of those statistics that Salesforce.com or any other Software as a Service or any Platform as a Service vendor is going to publish. Why? Because these companies don’t think of themselves as traditional software companies. They don’t expect that anyone will ever own a copy of their code.

The bottom line is that software will never be good enough to never need maintenance. Software vendors — whether they sell perpetual licenses or Software as a Service– will continue to charge for maintance. The reality is that the concrete idea of the maintenance fee will evolve over time. Customers will pay it but they probably won’t see it on their bills.  Nevertheless, the impact on traditional software companies will be dramatic over time and a lot of these companies will have to rethink their strategies. Many software companies have become increasingly dependent on maintenance revenue to keep revenue growing.  I think that Marc Benioff has started a conversation that will spark a debate that could have wide ranging implications for the future of not only maintenance but of what we think of as software.

Oracle Plus Sun: What does it mean?

I guess this is one way to start a Monday morning. After IBM decided to pass on Sun, Oracle decided that it would be a great idea. While I have as many questions as answers, here are my top ten thoughts about what this combination will mean to the market:

1. Oracle’s acquisition of Sun definitely shakes up the technology market. Now, Oracle will become a hardware vendor, an operating system supplier, and will own Java.

2. Oracle gets a bigger share of the database market with MySQL. Had IBM purchased Sun, it would have been able to claim market leadership.

3. This move changes the competitive dynamics of the market. There are basically three technology giants: IBM, HP, and Oracle. This acquisition will put a lot of pressure on HP since it partners so closely with Oracle on the database and hardware fronts. It should also lead to more acquisitions by both IBM and HP.

4. The solutions market reigns! Oracle stated in its conference call this morning that the company will now be able to deliver top to bottom integrated solutions to its customers including hardware, packaged applications, operating systems, middleware, storage, database, etc. I feel a mainframe coming on…

5. Oracle could emerge as a cloud computing leader. Sun had accumulated some very good cloud computing/virtualization technologies over the last few years. Sun’s big cloud announcement got lost in the frenzy over the acquisition talks but there were some good ideas there.

6. Java gets  a new owner. It will be interesting to see how Oracle is able to monetize Java. Will Oracle turn Java over to a standards organization? Will it treat it as a business driver? That answer will tell the industry a lot about the future of both Oracle and Java.

7. What happens to all of Sun’s open source software? Back a few years ago, Sun decided that it would open source its entire software stack. What will Oracle do with that business model? What will happen to its biggest open source platform, MySQL? MySQL has a huge following in the open source world. I suspect that Oracle will not make dramatic changes, at least in the short run. Oracle does have open source offerings although they are not the central focus of the company by a long shot. I assume that Oracle will deemphasize MySQL.

8. Solaris is back. Lately, there has been more action around Solaris. IBM annouced support earlier in the year and HP recently announced support services. Now that Solaris has a strong owner it could shake up the dynamics of the operating system world. It could have an impact on the other gorilla not in the room — Microsoft.

9. What are the implications for Microsoft? Oracle and Microsoft have been bitter rivals for decades. This acquisition will only intensify the situation. Will Microsoft look at some big acquisitions in the enterprise market? Will new partnerships emerge? Competition does create strange bedfellows. What will this mean for Cisco, VMWare, and EMC? That is indeed something interesting to ponder.

10. Oracle could look for a services acquisition next. One of the key differences between Oracle and its two key rivals IBM and HP is in the services space. If Oracle is going to be focused on solutions, we might expect to see Oracle look to acquire a services company. Could Oracle be eyeing something like CSC?

I think I probably posed more questions than answers. But, indeed, these are early days. There is no doubt that this will shake up the technology market and will lead to increasing consolidation. In the long run, I think this will be good for customers. Customers do want to stop buying piece parts. Customers do want to buy a more integrated set of offerings. However, I don’t think that any customer wants to go back to the days where a solution approach meant lock-in. It will be important for customers to make sure that what these big players provide is the type of flexibility they have gotten used to in the last decade without so much pain.

Sometimes its the little business process mistakes — not the strategy

As an industry analyst I am always looking at new technology innovations and new approaches that help companies transform their business process. There are some technologies that I have been seeing that are really excellent at adding robustness and sophistication to help companies transform the customer experience. But every once in a while you come across a business process example that makes you stop in your tracks and think about the small business process issues that can undue all the innovation.

Let me give you a real life example that got me thinking about this issue. An individual I knows owns rental property. It is a multi-unit house in the middle of a city. Needless to say, it needed insurance against potential disasters. My friend, being a responsible landlord sent his payment into his insurance provider. In fact, he set up a process with his bank so that his payment would be automatically sent out each month. Things were going great until one day my friend got a check from his insurance provider for “overpayment”. This really puzzled my friend since a process was in place for automatic payment. That process seemed to be working fine.  After numerous calls to the insurance company he finally got to the bottom of this complex business process problem. It seems that the company has a funny way of creating customer account numbers. The first seven digits of the number are the account number; the next two digits are the number of years that the policy has been in place.  My friend has put all nine digits in the account number field in his online payment system. Unfortunately, for my befuddled friend, no where on the insurance company statement did it suggest that those last two digits had nothing to do with the customer account number. So, basically, the payment was rejected because the year field was added. The company simply had not anticipated that anyone would not understand their process.

Now, I am sure that my friend wasn’t the only customer on the planet that thought that all nine digits were the account number. The happy ending is that the insurance was reinstated.

But here is the issue that I started thinking about. I suspect that this company spent a lot of money on its business process strategy, buying technology and tools. And they are pretty proud of their efforts. But it is so easy to get caught up in the broad process issues and forget the small issues like the structure of the customer account number. However, the reality is quite important. Take the example of my friend’s insurance company. If there were a few hundred customers who all made the same mistake it could result in an unanticipated loss of revenue. And in the future, those customers may decide that they really can’t trust their insurance provider and will choose to move to another insurance company.

An account number confusion problem will probably never be noticed by the management team. No one is going to call a meeting to discuss the fact that customers are confused by how we print our account number on our bills. But the reality may be that this small business process mistake made by an innocent programmer somewhere in the world can impact a company in a big way. I guess it isn’t a huge momentus issue in the full spectrum of world economies or technology evolution and it certainly isn’t the most exciting topic. But I think it is worth stepping back and thinking about.

Does IT see the writing on the cloud wall?

For the last six months or so I have been researching cloud computing. More recently, our team has started writing our next Dummies Book on Cloud Computing. Typically when we start a book we talk to everyone in the ecosystem — vendors big and small and lots of customers.  For example, when we started working on SOA for Dummies almost three years ago we found a lot of customers who could talk about their early experience. Not all of these companies had done things right. They had made lots of mistakes and started over. Many of them didn’t necessarily want their mistakes put into a book but they were willing to talk and share.  As I have mentioned in earlier writings, when we wrote the second edition of SOA for Dummies we had a huge number of customers that we could talk to. A lot of them have made tremendous progress in transforming not just their IT organization but the business as well.

We had a similar experience with Service Management for Dummies which comes out in June. Customers were eager to explain what they had learned about managing their increasingly complex computing and business infrastructures.  But something interesting in happening with the Cloud book. The experience feels very different and I think this is significant.

Our team has been talking to a lot of the vendors — big and small about their products and strategies around the cloud. Some of these vendors focused on some really important problems. Others are simply tacking the word cloud in front of their offerings hoping to get swept up in the excitment. But there is something missing. I think there are two things: there is a lack of clarity about what a cloud really is and what the component parts are. Is it simply Software as a Service? Is it an outsourced infrastructure? Is it storage capacity to supplement existing data centers? Is it a management platform that supports Software as a service? Does cloud require a massive ecosystem of partners? Is it a data center with APIs? Now, I am not going to answer these questions now (I’ll leave some of these to future writings).

What I wanted to talk about was what I see happening with customers.  I see customers being both confused and very wary. In fact, the other day I tried to set up a call with a senior executive from a large financial services company that I have spoken to about other emerging areas. This company always likes to be on the forefront of important technology trends. To my surprise, the executive was not willing to talk about clouds at all.  Other customers are putting their toes in the cloud (pun intended) by using some extra compute cycles from Amazon or by using Software as a Service offerings like SalesForce.com. Some customers are looking to implement a cloud-like capability within their own data center. Could it be there they are afraid that if they don’t offer something like Amazon’s EC2 cloud that they will be put out of business? Just as likely they are worried about the security of their intellectual property and their data.

I predict that the data center is about to go through a radical transformation that will forever change the landscape of corporate computing. Companies have recognized for a long time that data centers are very inefficient. They have tried clustering servers and virtualizing their servers with some level of success.  But the reality is that in time there will be a systematic approach to scalable computing based on the cloud.  It will not be a simple outsourced data center because of the transition to a new generation of software that is component based and service oriented. There is a new generation of service management technologies that makes the management of highly distributed environments much more seamless. The combination of service oriententation, service managment, and cloud will be the future of computing.

The bottom line is that while the vendor community sees dollar signs in this emerging cloud based world, the customers are afraid. The data center management team does not understand what this will mean for their future. If everything is tucked away in a cloud what is my job? Will we still have a data center? I suspect that it will not be that simple. At some point down the line we will actually move to utility computing where computing assets will all be based on a consistent set of standards so that customers will be able to mix and watch the services they need in real time. We clearly are not there yet. Today there will be many data center activities that either cannot or will not be put into a cloud. Internal politics will keep this trend towards clouds moving slowly.

Why Sun Microsystems can’t go it alone

Like everyone else, I have been looking what would happen if IBM were to buy Sun Microsystems. I actually thought it sounded pretty good. IBM would get hardware, some database, virtualization, cloud, and operating system software. Oh, and did I mention that they would control Java. But it sounds (at least as I am writing this) the negociations have broken down. Greed is an interesting phenomenon. Prior to overtures by IBM, Sun’s stock price was around $3.00 a share. IBM was offering as much as $9.50 a share.  I actually thought that price was a bit high — but what do I know.

So, what happens now? I suspect this little drama is far from over. It is possible, if rumors are to be believed that Sun’s Chairman Scott McNealy will take over the reigns of the company once again to try to restore the company to its former glory. It has happened before. Steve Jobs returned to put Apple back on the right path. Michael Dell is trying to turn Dell into the innovator that it had been a decade ago.  Will it happen this time? I think that there are some difficulties with this plan, if it is indeed true. A lot has changed since Sun declared in the 1980s that the network was the computer. Clearly, the company leadership was right. I was an observer of the pragmatic and brilliant marketing company that Sun became in the 1980s, when I worked for its competitor Apollo Computer that was later purchased by HP.

Today, the market is quite different than the market Sun and McNealy had successfully finessed.  Today, the market is consolidating around either very strong global leaders such as IBM, HP, Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco, etc. There is a new generation of leaders emerging that had their start in the Internet era such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook and even Twitter. So, is there room for Sun to remake itself in this new world?

I guess that my take is that it will be very hard for Sun to resurface and remake itself. Here are the three main reasons that I have doubts and why I think that shareholders and board members should sell the company to IBM.

1. Sun Microsystems will have trouble regaining hardware leadership.  While it has some reasonable hardware assets, it is not big enough to take on HP or the emergence of Cisco as a hardware players.  Even companies like Google and Amazon play an important role in hardware — in the commodity relm.

2. While it owns some impressive software assets that it has bought over the past decade, Sun has never learned to leverage these assets to propel it into a leadership role.  It has further confused the market by opening sourcing its software. While this might be popular in a down market, it is not enough to create a repeatable revenue stream. I was watching a funny video of Steve Gilmore interviewing current CEO Jonathan Swartz (as a puppet) that I think captures part of Sun’s problems.

3. Is there a single area of technology where Sun can innovate and out shine its competitors? I imagine there might be some hidden jewels that are transformational and will turn the market upside down inside Sun — but I doubt it. I think that as Cloud Computing moves to center stage, Sun could be a player but not a leader. To be successful, Sun will have to find a way to lead in some area.

The bottom line is that I do not see a good future for Sun as an independent company.  I think that the damage has been done. Not only does the company have to regain shaky customer confidence but it quickly has to start making a profit. It is not an easy climate even for the strongest companies.  While it is possible that McNealy will surprise us all and turn Sun from a struggling player in a consolidating market to a leader but it is probably too late.  Customers who are watching this drama unfold will have to be convinced that Sun has staying power — not just for this year for future decades. If Sun tries to maintain independent, I predict a long and difficult path that will not necessarily end in success.

Can companies reinvent themselves in a down market?

Many years ago I heard a story about how AT&T redesigned the phone network in the 1950s. It doesn’t really matter if it is true or not but it holds a valuable lesson. The story goes like this. In order for AT&T to take its telephony technology to the next level, it had to break the old model and start fresh. Management called all of its key engineers into a meeting and told them that the existing network had been destroyed and they had to start from scratch and design a new network.  And that is precisely what they did. They came up with a new design that was not burdened by the past.

What does this have to do with the world we are living in right now? I think that businesses have a unique opportunity to use this economic downturn to rethink the world.  What would we do if we could start over and reinvent the way we run a business or work with customers or design products that are more modular, more creative, and more accessible? What if the products and services we offer were blown up and we could start over?

I actually think that this may be happening behind the scenes. The really smart companies are using a time of crisis and uncertainty to prepare for the future. There will be a time in the future when customers will be more willing to buy products and services. There may be fewer providers in the world. The companies that survive and thrive are the ones that accept the chaos of the current business environment and see the hidden opportunities.

There is some very good thinking going on in companies that are blowing up their old models and thinking creatively. These companies will be the ones that become the powerful players in their markets in the future.  Who will the losers be? They are the companies that are filled with panic and looking for who to blame. So, whether you are in the technology market or in manufacturing or something completely different, it is a time to think about innovation and reinvention. It is time to rethink processes. Great companies are a combination of great flexible products and great innovative processes.

There are five things that future leaders should do:

1. Investigate your customers pain. What is it that they want that they can’t do. Even if their needs sound unsolvable, it may offer opportunities

2. Leverage emerging technologies. Leverage technology that lets your company explore its information about customers, product requirements, unsolved problems, and opportunities. This means that you need to stop looking in the rearview mirror at the past. Look at information in a way that allows you to anticipate the future and what is possible.

3. Don’t be held back by current reality. Clearly, you depend on revenue from existing products to stay afloat. However, think about your intellectual property in completely new ways.

4. Listen. I am finding that in this tough market people are doing more talking than listening. It is better to listen.

5. Experiment and fail. The only way to innovate is to try new things and fail. More innovation comes from failures than from initial success.

Where is HP headed?

Every year HP holds an industry analyst summit that includes everything but PCs and printers. While in the past HP has made quite a tidy profit with ink times are changing. The PC industry is also moving into a new era where margins are shrinking as well. So, increasingly, HP is looking to its server business, its software, and its services businesses to keep the company moving forward.  Having just spent two days at this meeting, I would love to say that I could encapsulate everything that I heard — and didn’t hear. You simply can’t be everywhere at once. So, instead, I will give you some of my observations on where HP is at this point in time.

I think that HP is at a crossroads. Today it is the largest technology company. This is a wonderful opportunity because size gives customers comfort. You don’t have to worry that a $100 billion plus company will wither away. On the other hand, it provides a challenge. When you are this big, you have to act big and bold. You have to set a leadership agenda that the market and the customers take note of.

I wish I had the time to tell you all of my observations but instead I will try to encapsulate my observations and conclusions in ten key points. If I miss something, you will have to forgive me. So, I’ll start by mentioning seven different points worth mentioning. I’ll then conclude with some general observations.

Point Number One.  Be Top Dog in Selected Markets. HP’s overall strategy remains consistent: it’s objective is to be either number 1 or 2 in each product category it participates in.  While HP has made some strides in achieving this lofty goal, it is still a work in process. For example, HP has achieved leadership in hardware — both in PCs, servers, and storage.  In fact, the company is doing a very good job in the blade market (that’s all I’ll say about hardware since I didn’t have time attend those sessions).  In services, HP’s bold move to buy EDS is a work in progress. EDS is obviously a big player in the services market — especially data center and process outsourcing.   The question is how well HP will transition EDS from a standalone company to become a part of HP.  Software, which I’ll discuss in more detail later, has the potential to be big but still has a way to go before becoming the number 1 or 2 player.
Point Number 2. EDS is larger than HP’s printer business. With EDS as part of the portfolio, the amount of revenue from printers and ink has started to diminish. In fact, HP executives proudly announced that EDS is as large as  HP’s printer revenue. Not only did EDS give HP a boost in overall revenue but it has been able to bring new customers into the HP fold.  It will be interesting to watch how EDS evolves under the HP umbrella.  Initially after the acquisition, EDS was positioned as an HP company. That will be changing this year as HP moves to integrate EDS into HP.  HP describes EDS’s value as owning the run time environment. In other words, outsourcing.  EDS will be charged with outsourcing infrastructure, process, and applications.  HP has taken its traditional consulting services business and aligned it with its software business. The combination of EDS and the strengthening of the consulting business will help HP gain credibility with customers.
Number 3. Procurve chases Cisco in network management. While HP has been in the networking business for decades, it has been a well kept secret. Because of HP’s tight partnership with Cisco, HP has been wary of appearing to compete. However, it appears that HP is now willing to take on Cisco in the networking switching arena. It should be interesting to watch as  Cisco takes on HP in the server business.

Number 4. The software business is (still) important. HP has long had a love/hate relationship with software. HP has selected management and automation to focus its software business. Therefore, it has proclaimed that it wants to be number one in data center automation, functional testing, service and software for ITSM (Information Technology Service Management).  HP has also made a commitment to what it calls information management and business intelligence (records management, backup, etc. and NeoView — data warehousing . The Knightsbridge consulting organization has been melded into this group, adding a lot of implementation knowledge. Service Oriented Architecture is included in the software group primarily with a strong focus on governance, risk, and compliance. HP has evolved its OpenView platform into a business service management business that it calls Business Technology Optimization. Within this framework is all of the management technology ranging from service optimization to network management. The integration of the Opsware technology into the fold has been complicated but it appears to be coming together as part of the overall data center management and cloud initiatives

Number 5. HP does the cloud. Like all the other vendors in the market, HP wants to be a big cloud player. HP defines the cloud as the next evolution of the Internet in which everything will be delivered as a service from basic compute services to power and business process. HP considers its Opsware acquisition from last year as the credential it needs to claim leadership in the cloud.  HP has a broad definition of the cloud and plans to approach cloud services from a broad perspective. It’s strategy is still evolving as we speak. The nacent management team seems to be smart and ready to move. But it is still early days.    Like other major vendors, HP would like to be the arms merchant to vendors who will resell cloud services to end customers. Clearly, the cloud strategy is a work in progress. But HP is thinking about the right issues as it makes its way into this important emerging area. HP’s intent is to leverage its software assets to create a common framework for its cloud strategy. HP anticipates that it can leverage EDS’s expertise to gain a cloud framework that it can leverage with customers.

Number 6. HP expands Software as a Service. When HP acquired Mercury it also picked up a growing SaaS business. The company is planning to continue to focus on this arena both in the enterprise market and the SMB market. SaaS offerings will continue to focus both on the testing and the remote monitoring markets. Most of these services are focused on the upper end of the SMB market.  Just today, HP announced what it called Cloud Assure, a SaaS offering intended to help SBMs prepare to adopt the cloud. It provides services that scan and validate the performance and security of applications.

So, what’s next?

As I have indicated, HP is a complicated, multi-dimensional company. On one hand, it has been able to innovate over the years, sometimes well ahead of the market. I remember spending days with HP in the early 1990s talking about a future where a customer could get computing capacity on demand. But over time HP has become a much bigger company with a large and complex portfolio of offerings.  At the same time, HP is very focused on being a provider of IT services, hardware, and software.  It has no desire to be a business management or a business consulting organization.  While HP  is most  comfortable in the hardware arena,  it is making important strides in this part of the business.  It is finally pushing its networking business and taking on Cisco directly.  The data center business seems to be well positioned to appeal to the IT operations management group that has been its traditional constituency.  The software business, on the other hand, is still at a transition point. While HP has done extremely well with its performance management and testing business, it has had a hard time creating an overall software portfolio. Opsware is clearly being used to provide the foundation for cloud computing but it will take some more time and cycles for this platform emerges as a power.

I think the most important acquistion that HP has done is really EDS because it brings in a new set of customers who would have never considered HP in the past. EDS also brings in a wealth of home grown enterprise software technologies, frameworks, and best practices that will help mature HP’s software portfolio. In my view, there will be more aquisitions to come for HP. I suspect that most will be in software and will have to fill the gaps in data management and security. HP is still learning to be comfortable in its skin as the biggest IT company in the market. It will have to work hard to maintain that position by executing big and buying big.

Has Service Management become Business Management?

Having just completed Service Management for Dummies (scheduled to be in the book stores in June), I have taken a step back to think about what I learned from the process. When our team first started the research process a lot of people I talked to wanted to know if we were writing a book about ITIL 3.0 best practices. So, the answer is of course we covered ITIL 3.0 best practices. However, as part of our research and indepth discussions with customers it became apparent that there is something bigger happening here that transcends IT.  I am not sure that this issue has been noticed out there in the world of management of services but it is real and encouraging.  Corporate management is beginning to notice that much of their physical infrastructure and the components that are the essence of their corporate existence are technology enabled.  The X-ray that used to be stored on a piece of film and stored in a file cabinet is now digitized. The automobile is now managed by sensors and other computers. Security of physical buildings is computerized. The factory floor is a complex system. Of course, I could go on for months with lists that include RFID and the like. But I think I have made the point that increasingly everything must be thought of as a system, not just the servers and desktops and networks that sit in the data center.

In my view, this is why the service management arena is getting to be so exciting. Many of the CIOs that our team interviewed for Service Management for Dummies echoed this level of excitement.  These executives are finding that applying service management principles to both the physical and IT world is transformational. It means that organizations can have a greater ability to take a holistic approach to managing their companies from a holistic perspective.

In the book, our team uses the example of the ATM machine to make the point. The ATM is a relatively simple automated device that requires a matching of a customer number with an ID code. It requires that a request for cash from the consumer be matched with the availability of funds from that bank or one of its partner’s banks. It requires the ability to do the accounting to provide the customer with a receipt that states how much money was withdrawn and how much is left in the account.  And there is more! Behind that customer action that might take all of 5 seconds is a huge infrastructure: a data center, a security infrastructure, a sensor that detects of the machine itself is experiencing a problem. There is a network of trucks managed by a third party company that ensures that the trucks deliver cash to replenish the ATM machine. There are even more parts to this world that I am not mentioning — so forgive me. But what is most interesting is that all of these mini-ecosystems are intertwined. What if the bank’s management decides to save money by selecting a new cash delivery network. This company promises great service at a fraction of the cost. To save money the bank goes with the new service only to discover that its drivers are unreliable and cash is often not delivered in a timely manner.  Even if the ATM networks works well, the data center is flawless, and the security is solid, the bank is not able to deliver satisfaction to its customers because there is no cash.

The bottom line is that service management is becoming a corporate issue — not just an IT issue. The secret to service management is about the customer, partner, supplier, and employee experience. Like every other technology transformation over the past couple of decades, mature technology initiatives become management initiatives. Increasingly, service management is being tied to the key performance indicators of the business. Therefore, it is imperative that IT management understand the goals of corporate management as well as the needs of internal and external customers.