Enterprise Architecture in Action

The 2011 Top 50 Business Thinkers...

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:26:00 +0000

Do you have a favorite management guru? Someone that guides and shapes your thinking in an area such as leadership, business or corporate strategy, or my favorite - innovation. Interestingly, when CEOs like Jeff Bezos name their favorite books, they'll often cite authors like Jim Collins, who wrote the business school classic, Good To Great, Malcolm Gladwell, and Michael Porter, known as the father of modern corporate strategy. If, like me, you have ever wondered who the most influential and respected business thinkers are then your wait is over...

I just came across a definitive global ranking of management thinkers that is published every two years based on voting at the Thinkers50 website and input from a team of advisers led by Stuart Crainer and Des Dearlove. The Thinkers50 has ten established criteria by which thinkers are evaluated: originality of ideas; practicality of ideas; presentation style; written communication; loyalty of followers; business sense; international outlook; rigor of research; impact of ideas and the elusive guru factor. Not surprisingly, 2011's winner is Clayton Christensen of "disruptive innovation" fame. The 2009 winner was the late C. K. Prahalad, who co-authored a favorite book of mine "The New Age of Innovation" with M. S. Krishnan.

Here's the link to the website:

http://www.thinkers50.com/results/2011

I have reproduced the listing* below with yellow highlights on the business thinkers that I actively follow.

Ranking Name (Previous Yr. Ranking)

1 Clayton Christensen (28)

2 W. Chan Kim & Renée Mauborgne (5)

3 Vijay Govindarajan (24)

4 Jim Collins (17)

5 Michael Porter (11)

6 Roger Martin (32)

7 Marshall Goldsmith (14)

8 Marcus Buckingham (25)

9 Don Tapscott (39)

10 Malcolm Gladwell (2)

11 Sylvia Ann Hewlett (-)

12 Lynda Gratton (18)

13 Nitin Nohria (-)

14 Robert Kaplan & David Norton (37)

15 Gary Hamel (10)

16 Linda Hill (-)

17 Seth Godin (-)

18 Teresa Amabile (-)

19 Rita McGrath (-)

20 Richard Rumelt (-)

21 Richard D'Aveni (26)

22 Jeffrey Pfeffer (-)

23 David Ulrich (31)

24 Tom Peters (19)

25 Rosabeth Moss Kanter (27)

26 Nirmalya Kumar (-)

27 Pankaj Ghemawat (-)

28 Herminia Ibarra (-)

29 Daniel Pink (-)

30 Henry Mintzberg (33)

31 Costas Markides (47)

32 Thomas Friedman (30)

33 Tammy Erickson (46)

34 John Kotter (41)

35 Amy Edmondson (-)

36 Kjell Nordström & Jonas Ridderstråle (23)

37 Howard Gardner (16)

38 Henry Chesbrough (-)

39 Daniel Goleman (34)

40 Vineet Nayar (-)

41 Rakesh Khurana (44)

42 Fons Trompenaars (-)

43 Ken Robinson (-)

44 Andrew Kakabadse (-)

45 Stewart Friedman (-)

46 Adrian Slywotzky (-)

47 Stephen Covey (29)

48 Sheena Iyengar (-)

49 Umair Haque (-)

50 Subir Chowdhury (-)

*Source: The Thinkers50

The "Innovative" Company - Is it just a figment of one's imagination?

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:59:00 +0000

Fast Company just released their list of 2012's 50 most innovative companies. One company that immediately jumped out for me was Netflix - not because it is on the list but rather because it is NOT on the list! Netflix was #12 on the top 50 most innovative companies in 2010. It then advanced to #8 in 2011 for streaming itself into a $9 billion powerhouse and crushing Blockbuster along the way. Now, it's completely out of the top 50! Those of you who have read my recently published book, Living in the Innovation Age, might not be surprised by this as this is exactly the discussion that Chapter 1 begins with - just as Netflix displaced Blockbuster by changing the rules of the "movie rental" game so too is it being displaced by others who are now changing the rules on Netflix!

Anyway, that is not the point of this blog. :)

The reason that I brought up Fast Company's list of the top 50 most innovative companies is that most of us would love to see our company mentioned among this esteemed group. After all, who doesn't want to be part of leading an "innovative" company?

But is there such a thing as an "innovative" company? Or is it just a figment of our imagination much like how a damsel in distress might dream about her "knight in shining armor?"

One of the principles of innovation I discuss in my book is that "Innovation is a Journey Not a Destination." As I explain the principle, I refer to the "impedance mismatch" between what typically sustains organizations (whose natural tendency is to seek efficiencies) and what it must do to innovate (promote an environment that is tolerant of mistakes and potential inefficiencies in the short term). Given the natural "efficiency-oriented" mindset of organizations, "innovativeness" is an unnatural state of existence. As we all know from our study of science, all elements in nature strive to exist in their steady state, which for organizations is the state of minimal errors and risk.

A recent blog in HBR from Scott Anthony, author of the "The Little Black Book of Innovation", summarizes three theories from innovation thought leaders that support my hypothesis above:

Clayton Christensen asserts that a single organization can't house two competing systems; companies seeking to drive disruptive growth therefore need to create spin-off organizations.
Michael Tushman and Charles O'Reilly suggest that ambidextrous companies need to create "distinct but linked" organization, governed by a "rare but essential" executive who can simultaneously use competing frames
Vijay Govindarajan and Chris Trimble suggest that companies can consciously manage the balance between the "performance engine" (that minimizes mistakes) and the "discovery team" (that encourages experiments) by being clear about what core capabilities should be forgotten and borrowed.

Each of the above theories highlights the importance of not allowing the efficiency-oriented culture of an organization to smother to death the innovative tendencies of the fledgling few.

The bottom line - Innovative companies can exist in nature but only in tightly controlled and managed environments that allow an open sharing of ideas, collaborative learning, and a culture where taking risks and making mistakes is not only tolerated but encouraged. With out these precursors, innovative companies can only exist in one's imagination.

The Legal Side of Innovation Strikes Again...

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:24:00 +0000

I just read an interesting, shocking, disappointing, disheartening, and a lot of "ing" provoking article on Yahoo News today. Titled "Apple may face iPad export ban in China trademark dispute," the article speaks directly to a topic a discussed in my book "Living in the Innovation Age." The topic is highlighted as a side box and is appropriately titled "The Legal Side of Innovation" since it discusses the how intellectual property (IP) law serves as a double-edged sword that on the one hand protects an innovator's hard work and yet on the other hand creates impediments in the road to innovation.

That's exactly what is happening in the Yahoo News article that I mentioned above. A Chinese technology firm, Proview, claims that it owns the iPad trademark and is seeking a ban on exports of Apple Inc's computer tablets in from China. It goes without saying that Apple is not too happy since this could strike a major blow to iPad sales worldwide. Not only is China a huge consumer market but it is a major production base for Apple's iPad, iPhone and iPod. Chinese local media have reported that Proview is taking legal action, seeking up to 10 billion yuan ($1.6 billion) in compensation from Apple for trademark infringement. That, however, could be the least of Apple's problems. So what went wrong? Was Apple lax in its due diligence, or did Apple just choose to "ignore" this issue thinking they would cross that bridge when they came to it, or is Proview misrepresenting the facts?

As a spectator, I look forward to seeing how this case unravels...

Want to Innovate? Think "Different"

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:53:00 +0000

I came across an interesting blog today on HBR titled “Wanted: Idea Fusers” by Bronwyn Fryer. The blog starts off quite simply with a well known and proven concept that "great innovation springs from the ability to pull two unlike things together to create a beautiful third.” Of course, her premise is supported by how Steve Jobs famously shifted a paradigm by “fusing” calligraphy with technology to create the Mac's legendary graphical user interface.

Frankly, I couldn’t agree more.

In fact, that is exactly what Chapter 8 of my book, Living in the Innovation Age, is all about. Titled “Leveraging the Medici Effect”, the chapter talks about the importance of leveraging the ideas, background, and experiences of a diverse group of people (employees, customers, and partners). The Medici effect refers to the popular theory that the Renaissance Age began in Florence, Tuscany in the 14th century primarily because of Florence's affluent Medici family. Historians who back this theory contend that the Medici family acted as the catalyst for innovation during the Renaissance by bringing together people from vastly different professions and cultural backgrounds. This enabled a unique exchange and confluence of ideas that had never been possible before. California’s Silicon Valley, a hub for entrepreneurship and innovation, is often considered a modern example of the Medici effect because many credit its success to the cultural diversity in a small concentrated area. The fact is that organizations, too, can leverage the Medici effect by providing a safe and unencumbered environment that encourages the free exchange of ideas and promotes collaboration between people with different skills, competencies, and backgrounds. In my book, I discuss four specific techniques that can help organizations leverage the Medici effect to spur innovation in their environment.

Rethinking Workspace Design
Harnessing the Community
Collecting Ideas from Everyone and Everywhere
Making Innovation a Team Sport

One point that Bronwyn makes in her blog a bit more clearly than I did in my chapter is the importance of truly practicing "hiring diversity." She provides examples of companies such as IDEO and Jump Associates that get paid big money for their ability to spur innovation through associative thinking. Both IDEO and Jump practice "hiring diversity" in which they hire people who are a "mile wide and inch deep." In other words, they prefer generalists over specialists. Bronwyn concludes her blog by challenging us to take a good look at the people we typically hire. Does our "diversity policy" only apply to people of different genders and races? To innovate, we need more diversity than that - we need intellectual diversity that can help us combine unlike ideas together in new ways much like what happened back in the Renaissance Age, the Silicon Valley, and Steve Jobs' MAC's graphical user interface.

The bottom line - Innovation Thrives on Diversity and Generalization not Homogeneity and Specialization.

Social Media - A life saving innovation that's more than just a toy!

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:23:00 +0000

In my recent book, Living in the Innovation Age, I discussed how Social Media tools such as Twitter and Facebook have been used with great success in the non profit sector to save countless lives in the face of natural disasters such as earthquakes.

For example, last year when Japan was hit by massive earthquakes, both Twitter and Google’s online Person Finder tool gave aid organizations a method to gather information about the disaster and correct any misinformation on the Web.

Another example that I discussed in my book is Ushahidi, which has helped save many lives in
disaster struck areas such as Haiti and Chile. The origins of Ushahidi can be traced back to 2008, while Kenyan blogger Ory Okolloh was covering the post-election violence in Kenya and she blogged, "Any techies out there willing to do a mash up of where the violence and destruction is occurring using Google Maps?" Within days, two such techies wrote software code for an open-source, Web-based platform that would come to be known as Ushahidi, which means “testimony” in Swahili. Ushahidi provides volunteers information collected from a variety of sources that include text messages, blog posts, videos, phone calls, and pictures, all mapped in near real time. Over 10,000 Haitian-American volunteers across the United States translated every text message from Creole to English within 10 minutes. The result of this innovation has been nothing short of spectacular with countless precious lives saved.

Now, it seems that we have yet another convert.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is also using information gathered from social media monitoring to help improve its effectiveness in responding to natural disasters. On February 3, 2012 at an event hosted by the State Department called Tech@State, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate conceded that "While official assessments are more thorough, speed is more important than precision." He likened disasters to horseshoes, hand grenades and thermo nuclear devices in which you just have to be close. In his words "You won't get that time back...speed in response is the most perishable commodity in a disaster."

Over the past few years FEMA has been heavily citicized especially following its sluggish response following Hurricane Katrina. Many have claimed that FEMA failed miserably because it spent the precious first 12 to 24 hours after the disaster getting teams into the area to make an assessment and send information back to headquarters rather than taking the desperately needed life-saving action.

Compare and constrast that to how FEMA responded when tornadoes ripped through Joplin, Missouri in May 2011 in which FEMA correctly realized that it had enough information, even if it was imperfect, from Twitter and Facebook to suggest that the situation was dire and immediately start taking remediating action.

The bottom line is that social media is becoming an increasingly important way for aid organizations to quickly assess, mobilize appropriate resources, and rapidly respond to disasters helping them save countless lives.

Now that's way cool! :)

Crowdsourcing - A Future Beyond Innovation

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:06:00 +0000

Innovation Seeks to be Free, so states Principle #4 in my recently published book, Living in the Innovation Age.

And as I further elaborate in my book, “crowdsourcing,” is an example of one such innovation trend that exhibits the three requisite characteristics of being free – Openness, Participatory, and Collaborative. Crowdsourcing refers to the outsourcing of tasks that are typical performed inside an organization by employees or contractors to an unspecified, large group i.e. the crowd. I cite several examples of successful crowdsourcing projects in my book including former Federal CIO Vivek Kundra’s “Apps for Democracy” and DARPA’s next-generation combat support vehicle (XC2V) prototype contests.

Now it appears that the concept of crowdsourcing is really catching on beyond what one normally might consider the realm of innovation. Just yesterday Rita McGrath blogged on HBR about how employers are using the concept of crowdsourcing to acquire skills to get even traditional jobs done. As an example, she cites an article in the Wall Street Journal that described how AOL has been doing just that. Although this appears strikingly similar to traditional outsourcing, it’s actually not since the employer doesn't need to make any commitments at all – not even to a temporary project team, much less to permanent employees.

So, why the sudden interest in crowdsourcing? The bottom line is that in today’s roller coaster economy access to assets trumps ownership of assets. As it turns out, crowdsourcing makes gaining cost competitive and flexible access to critical assets easier than ever before.

Innovation is in the Air... Ummm, I mean State of the Union

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:11:00 +0000

As many of you probably did, I also listened to President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address to our nation with great interest Tuesday night. As I mentioned in my recent book, Living in the Innovation Age, President Obama in his 2011 State of the Union address challenged the United States to win the future by "out-innovating" the rest of the world. I was glad to see that innovation is still at the top of President Obama's mind in 2012. In fact, innovation was very prominently mentioned SIX times in his address to the nation.

Here are the relevant excerpts:

Innovation is what America has always been about.
Innovation also demands basic research.
Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy.
Innovation led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries.
We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives.
There’s no reason why Congress shouldn't at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation.

By the way, a major recurring theme in his speech was "built to last," which was mentioned FIVE times. It seems that someone has been reading Jim Collins! :)

Innovation Killer - Confusing Stability with "Maintaining the Status Quo"

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:21:00 +0000

I just read an article in the latest (January/February 2012) issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR) that I found to be well-written, interesting, and very relevant to what many of us are facing as the global economy tries to recover from one devastating blow after another. The article is titled “How the Growth Outliers Do It” by Rita Gunther McGrath.

Rita starts with the premise (based on her research) that only a tiny percentage of large companies reliably grow the bottom line year after year. Those that do share certain characteristics. On the one hand, she states that they’re built for innovation. They enter new markets before competitors do; they’re good at experimentation; they hold everyone accountable for new ideas; and they can move on a dime. On the other hand, her research indicates that they’re extremely stable. Senior leadership have come up through the company; strategy and organizational structure stay consistent for long stretches; client retention is unusually high; and the corporate culture is strong and unchanging.

My Net Takeaways

Ultimately, I found her most significant conclusion to be that although stability and innovation may seem contradictory, it turns out that stability appears to be what makes innovation—and steady growth—possible.

As I think about the article in the context of the book that I just wrote (Living in the Innovation Age) and my statement in Chapter 1 “Status quo is the enemy of innovation”, I realize that many leaders confuse status quo with stability. This confusion, in my opinion, is the beginning of a deadly slippery slope of suboptimal growth, lowered morale, and a destiny of mediocrity.

Will Social Media lead to Management Topsy Turvy?

Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:39:00 +0000

Today's question on the ebizQ Web 2.0 forum was about whether "social" would lead to the demise of top-down management.

I'll be honest... I just don't understand the premise for this question, even after reading the blog that it was referring to.

Did the post office end top-down management?
Did telephony end top-down management?
Did email end top-down management?
Did instant messaging end top-down management?

Then, why would social end it?

Social media is just another channel that facilitates the same communication that had been happening before with the post office, telephones, email, and IM. Now, will management be impacted by social media? Absolutely, just like it was impacted by other previous advancements in communication styles and technologies.

* Originally posted in the ebizQ Web 2.0 forum on July 27, 2011.

Does Facebook's loss of users signal a shift in Social Media?

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:18:00 +0000

An interesting question came up on the ebizQ Web 2.0 forum today. As everyone must know by now, Facebook lost more than 5% of its user in the U.S. last month, and if you haven't heard, here's an article at Computerworld. The question is whether this signals an underlying shift in social media?

Most answers came down to something along the lines of "Social Media is a fad and all fads fade away eventually..."

But, is the fad Social Media or is the fad really facebook, twitter, etc.?

Social media is a broad category of media that enables social interaction, using highly accessible and scalable communication techniques, and by leveraging web-based and mobile technologies to turn one-way communication into a two-way interactive dialogue. Facebook and Twitter are just tools. For technology geeks like myself the distinction is akin to that between SOA and Web Services.

A couple of reasons can help explain what's going on:

Facebook fatigue as users get tired and/or bored with facebook.
More exciting or relevant options become available. The Social Media landscape is lush with tools of which facebook is just one option. My gut tells me that if we added up all the new users across the many different Social Media sites they would more than make up for the 5% loss that facebook had. Also, more than likely these 5% users that defected facebook went to one of the other options thus having no impact on Social Media usage overall.

So, I agree facebook usage might go down as the fad loses intensity but Social Media on the whole is here to stay.

* Originally posted on the ebizQ Web 2.0 forum on June 15, 2011.

Pentagon says "Cyber Attacks Can Count as Acts of War"

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:48:00 +0000

On the surface it might seem like a "giant leap for mankind". The Pentagon has finally acknowledged what many of us have long believed (and known) to be true - Cyber attacks are every bit as dangerous, if not more, as any other conventional attack and should be counted as an act of war.

Isn't it about time?

It's a well known fact that no other country has the capability to match our (U.S.) armed forces - air, land, or sea. However, in recent years a fourth dimension - Cyber Space - has come into prominence where we are highly vulnerable for at least two key reasons:

1. The barriers to entry for establishing the capability and conducting cyber warfare are significantly less than those for the same capabilities in the conventional warfare, which is where many Eastern European countries and others such as China can reap huge benefits from relatively little capital investment and their huge numbers of math, science, and computer scientists.

2. Our heavy reliance on our extremely sophisticated, connected, and converged data and utility networks makes us more vulnerable to the same cyber attack that we could carry out on a another country that is far less reliant on their cyber networks.

Pentagon's announcement comes on the heels of an admission by Chinese Defence Ministry spokesman, Geng Yansheng, in a briefing in Xinhua. The elite unit - part of China's People's Liberation Army - is called the "cyber blue team" and will supposedly not only protect Chinese networks from external cyber attack but could also be utilized as a first strike, offensive mechanism in warfare. According to the Channel 4 news story, governments and companies around the world are already concerned that their networks come under regular attack from Chinese hackers. In February, for example, Chinese hackers targeted multinational energy firms to steal information, in an attack called "Night Dragon.

In my opinion, the Pentagon has been slow to react to the cyber threats that have existed for a while. There are numerous examples of cyber warfare having been used in the past decade. So why the lethargic response from the Pentagon? All I can say is it's "better late than never." The announement from the Pentagon yesterday formalizing cyber attacks as an act of war is definitely a step in the right direction as is the establishment of a new cyber command last year, headed by the director of the National Security Agency, to consolidate military network security and attack efforts.

These are great first steps but we still have a long way to go in protecting ourselves from cyber attacks. Cyber war is here to stay exposing us more than ever and it is up to us to be ready for it whether we like it or not.

Eenie meenie miney mo - Packaged Apps Vs. Custom Apps

Wed, 04 May 2011 16:53:00 +0000

Today's question on the ebizQ Tech forum was about which one is better - packaged apps or custom developed ones? The question was inspired by Mike Gilpin's Forrester blog, Packaged Versus Custom Apps: The Debate Rages On, where he writes that it wasn't that long ago that packaged apps ruled the application delivery landscape and custom development was decidedly the second choice. He contends, however, that today, the decision is not so cut and dried, as firms struggle to find the right balance between the quick time-to-market of packages and the competitive distinction custom development can create.

The simple answer is neither is better. An enterprise needs both. The question is akin to asking "what's better - peanut butter or jelly?" How often have we heard of just a peanut butter or just a jelly sandwich. Definitely not as much as we hear about a "peanut butter and jelly" or "PBJ" sandwich. Similarly, it would be rare to find an organization that did not have both custom and packaged applications weaved together.

Make no mistake however that this by no means implies that both custom and packaged apps are the same. There are different reasons why a situation might warrant one over the other. For example, a core strategic business process most often requires a custom application in order to create and maintain maximum competitive advantage. Packaged apps typcially standardize "best practices". Since packaged apps can be bought and used by anyone, they (and therefore standardized best practices) rarely yield a true competitive advantage. But if a business process (such as billing your customers) is routine (i.e. is not the source of your competitive advantage) then by all means leveraging a packaged app and customizing it makes perfect sense.

The moral of the above is that one thing is rarely better than another in the absolute sense. It's the situation that might make one solution more appealing than the other.

* Originally posted in ebizQ's Tech forum on May 4, 2011.

And we wonder why Enterprise Architecture efforts seldom succeed...

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:55:00 +0000

It's been a while but worth the wait since I have finally been rewarded with a question on the ebizQ SOA forum worthy of attention :).

Gartner recently stated "Enterprise architecture (EA) is a key strategic initiative, as the majority of practitioners have shifted their focus to their business's strategic vision, not focusing on the IT organization alone. By 2016, 30 percent of EA efforts will be supported as a collaboration between business and IT, up from 9 percent in early 2011."

The question on the forum was "Do you agree?"

All I can say is "Wow!!!"

A 30% collaboration on EA between business and IT by the year 2016! I wish I could have heard and seen Betsy Burton, vice president and distinguished analyst at Gartner, as she quoted these numbers. I would have loved to see how she would have managed to keep a straight face while quoting these numbers without any hint of sarcasm in her voice.

With abysmal numbers like these is it any wonder why most Enterprise Architecture initiatives fail miserably? If only 9% of EA efforts today are a collaboration between business and IT then what the heck are the other 91% efforts doing?

Want to see more wins for EA? Then don't wait for 30% collaboration by 2016; instead strive for 100% collaboration by the year 2012.

Click here to follow the entire discussion on the ebizQ SOA forum.

Back to the Future - The Role of an Enterprise Architect

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:08:00 +0000

My first question on ebizQ's Enterprise Architecture forum is an interesting one that was inspired by a blog entry titled Enterprise Architects' Role In Aligning IT With Business by Forrester Research VP Gene Leganza as he ponders what the Enterprise Architect role would look like in the future based on what he is seeing happening today.

While it's a question worthy of serious thought, I believe that the role of an Enterprise Architect (EA) has always been and will always be to implement an organization's business strategy with a supporting and complementing IT strategy. Different companies have different names and reporting structures for this role depending on their size, vertical, and geographical location. Some call the role an EA, some a business architect, some a chief architect, and some call that role a CTO or CIO, but the role always exists. The biggest game changer that I see is that our global, innovation-based economy is just accelerating the pace at which "EA"s that don't fit this role are exposed and replaced.

* Originally posted on ebizQ's Enterprise Architecture forum on February 23, 2011.

Have Cloud... Bye bye IT Department?

Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:26:00 +0000

It's been a while since I've participated in the ebizQ forums. But I'm back now! :)

Today's question on the Cloud Computing forum was whether the advent of the cloud will one day make IT departments a thing of the past - especially for "smaller" companies. Will the cloud at some point allow smaller companies to do away with their IT department?

I think the question needs some further clarification. Is it do away with the IT Department or with IT Capital Assets?

Although it may seem trivial on the surface, there is a major distinction between the two. An IT department has more than just physical "IT" or technology. It has people and processes as well. Cloud Computing might be able to replace all of the technology but not all of the people and processes. So, my answer is "Yes" to doing away with IT Capital Assets but "No" to doing away with the IT Department.

By the way, way back in early 2010, Gartner had made the bold proclamation that one-fifth of all businesses will own absolutely no IT assets come 2012. While I don't know if that number (20%) will hold true, I would like to point out that they too mentioned "IT assets" as opposed to IT department.

* Originally posted on the ebizQ Cloud Computing forum on February 9, 2011.

Implementing Clouds - What can a baby teach us?

Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:00:00 +0000

According to a recent survey quoted on this blog by DevX, companies are more likely to virtualize their apps than move them to the cloud.

Maybe it's just me but is that really news?

Honestly, so much has been said and written about this very topic over the past couple of years that I won't bore you by rehashing the details. Suffice it to say that in most cases virtualization is the stepping stone to a Cloud. Typically a virtualized data center leads to what is known as a "private" Cloud, which ultimately helps companies figure out - realistically - what makes sense to farm out to a "public", "hybrid", or "community" Cloud and what to keep in house.

The above analogy is akin to saying that "babies are more likely to crawl than to walk and run". Motherhood and apple pie, anyone? :)

* Originally posted in the ebizQ Cloud Computing forum on January 11, 2011.

Is your precious data safer in the Clouds?

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 22:02:00 +0000

It is if you believe this blog that states Cloud computing offers 'no data security fears'. Well, that's a fairly bold statement that sparked a healthy discussion on the ebizQ Cloud Computing forum today.

But, honestly, does it even matter today - whether your data is really safer in the Clouds or not?

From a purely technical perspective the seemingly blatant statement made in the above referenced blog entry might even be true but as the saying goes "perception is reality" and the Cloud is no exception! So while Cloud providers might be the most technically capable of securing data (the potential reality), organizations will still continue to be very leary (because of their risk averse perception) of actually letting go of their control over the data by putting it in the Cloud.

In their defense, though, data security is not just limited to technical ability. Rather, most of the complexity in securing data is actually around legal and privacy issues, which have yet to be figured out adequately such that organizations can adjust their perception.

To be clear, the issue of perception is not just a challenge for Clouds. I still encounter people (even in the technology field) who will not use online banking in the fear that their account information might be exposed. These same people who will not trust SSL to protect their account or credit card information over the Internet will happily hand over their credit card to a complete stranger to take to a backroom and charge them for their meal. And they do so fully knowing that with the right equipment it would only take a few minutes to make a complete working copy of the credit card!!!

So, yes, perception is reality, and thus the real question then is not whether Clouds are safer than in-house data centers but rather if they are or will ever be perceived as such.

* Originally posted on the ebizQ Cloud Computing forum on January 4, 2011.

Looking back - Cloud's biggest victory in 2010

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:13:00 +0000

Well, the year is coming to an end, and the question was bound to come up on ebizQ's Cloud Computing forum.

So, what was the biggest thing to happen to the cloud in 2010?

Indeed, 2010 was indisputably a big year for the cloud. However, if I had to pick one event as cloud's biggest victory in 2010, it would have to be the adoption of a cloud-first policy by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Agencies (OMB) that requires Federal Agencies to consider cloud as their first choice while proposing new IT programs as part of the 2012 budget process. This open willingness to adopt cloud by the U.S Federal Government is a really big deal for the cloud especially when you consider that the Federal Government has spent over $600 billion on IT related inverstments over the past decade and has a current annual budget of close to $80 billion.

* Originally posted on the ebizQ Cloud Computing forum on December 21, 2010.

SOA... is the answer as simple as "outsourcing it"?

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:28:00 +0000

Today's discussion on the ever-lively ebizQ SOA forum was inspired by the article Why I Outsourced Application Development to China on CIO.com, which gives some lessons learned on IT outsourcing specifically related to SOA.

Hence the question on the forum: Does it make sense to outsource your SOA?

I think the following paragraph from the article is key to understanding the context of the question:

"...Tactically, Lee wanted to replace Interval's core applications and move to a service-oriented architecture (SOA). Strategically, she wanted to create an agile IT organization better able to respond to changes in the business. Outsourcing new application development to an offshore provider with experience in SOA and agile development would enable a quicker—and cheaper—transformation on both fronts..."

Two noteworthy points include:

SOA was seen as a tactic for realizing the agile IT strategy.
Only new applications were being considered for SOA.

So, while the approach Lee took might have achieved her vision, I have fundamental disagreements with both points above.

First, SOA is not a tactic but a long-term strategy for achieving an agile IT organization. In fact, most of the so called "failures" can ultimately be traced to a near-sighted, short-term approach to SOA.

Second, limiting SOA to only new applications and their development misses a primary benefit of SOA - the benefit of breaking down the highly fortified silos of functionality to create a more transparent, open, and collaborative IT environment.

So, in conclusion, while outsourcing application development definitely makes sense, outsourcing "SOA", in my view of the world, does not.

* Originally posted in the ebizQ SOA forum on December 15, 2010.

Finally... I can CLAIM my CISM

Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:00:00 +0000

What right now seems like ages ago, back in March, I started studying for my CISM (Certified Information Security Manager) certification.

I took the CISM exam on June 12th, waited for a gruelling 61 days to find out on August 13th that I had PASSED.

I then applied for my CISM credential on September 3rd and today finally after 90 days I just received notification that I have been granted the credential.

Amazingly, I spent 5 months just waiting! That's more time than I spent preparing for the exam!

So, the entire process form beginning to end... 9 months. Doesn't something else take nine months as well?

Hmmmmmm...

The Service Orientation Conundrum

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:39:00 +0000

Today's question on the ebizQ SOA forum was inspired from Joe McKendrick's ZDnet blog posting where he refers to the classic SOA conundrum: Does good service-oriented architecture result from having a “service-oriented” focus and organization, or does SOA help lead to a more service-oriented organization?

We've all heard about questions that have no answer. To me this is an example of just the opposite - a question that answers itself!

The simple fact is that you need both - the service oriented organization (culture) and the service oriented architecture (technology); neither one is the master; and they form an iterative, virtuous circle.

So, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

* Originally posted in the ebizQ SOA Forum on December 1, 2010.

Virtualization, Bundling, and Browser Wars?

Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:33:00 +0000

What do "Virtualization, Bundling, and Browser Wars" have in common. Well, an hour ago I would have probably said "What???!!!"

I feel a bit differently now.

The question on ebizQ's Cloud Computing forum today was about how private clouds is impacting the virtualization strategies of companies and referred to a blog posting by Mike Vizard.
Mike brings up a few very interesting points. However, what really grabbed my attention was the following statement:

"... Canonical this week partnered with Convirture to add an open source virtualization management platform to its Ubuntu distribution of Linux."

Now that is interesting. Imagine every operating system/platform with its own virtualization capability. Wait, it's already happening! Furthermore, the built in virtualization is optimized for the platform and vice versa.

Pretty cool, or is it?

Now think back to the time when Microsoft bundled its browser, IE, with its Windows Operating System.

If you can't recall, here's a refresher:

"United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states who alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera)..."

Funny how history has a way of repeating itself. Let's just hope that in this case it stops repeating itself at the "bundling" part and not at the "billions of dollars spent in legal fees" part!

* Originally posted on the ebizQ Cloud Computing forum on November 4, 2010.

My Podcast - The Battle for the Clouds.

Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:52:00 +0000

Listen to my latest podcast The battle for the clouds is on: Tarak Modi explains.

Feel free to send comments. I look forward to your feedback and suggestions for future podcasts.

AFCEA Cloud Conference - Here's what you missed!

Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:27:00 +0000

I attended the AFCEA Cloud Conference yesterday held at the Johns Hopkins Kossiakoff Center in Laurel MD. The sessions in the conference were organized as interactive town hall style discussions in three topic areas:

Cloud Security Policy and Guidance
Cloud Security Architecture and Technology
Secure Cloud Operations

I targeted the policy and guidance sessions. Here are just a few of the golden nuggets that I have distilled:

Information used to support the mission; now it is the mission.
We have the same problems as did before; the difference is we dont have the luxury of time anymore.
Everything is assymetric.
Global interconnectivity makes Private Clouds an oxymoron.
Build sidewalks where people walk; create cloud policy that facilitates the way users use the cloud.
Warfighters are inherently agile; cloud policy needs to be such as well.
It’s about Mission Engineering not just Systems Engineering
Do we need new policy or a new policy making process?

SOA - The Second Coming?

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 02:41:00 +0000

According to a recent post in InfoQ "Nearly two years after proclaiming that SOA was dead, the Burton group has changed their mind and now writes that SOA is set for a comeback."

So, it is no surprise, that ebizQ, picked up on this and posed the question on their SOA forum "What reason do you give for the initial failure of SOA?"

Well, the question as posed has a BIG assumption built into it - that SOA had failed!

ebizQ readers were quick to pounce upon the assumption. The general consensus was the SOA itself had never really failed.

I agree.

SOA, the architecture, had never failed; rather it was the implementation and execution that never measured up to expectations. Conversly, we might have a better chance of success with SOA in its so called "second coming" since

The hype has been tempered down considerably with a healthy dose of reality,
The technology has matured significantly to support a service architecture (think Clouds, Virtualization, ESBs, etc.), and
We, as an IT Community, have matured significantly.

* Originally posted on the ebizQ SOA Forum on November 17, 2010.