Industry Moves to Fill Gap for Building Trusted Supply Chain Technology Accreditation

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast from The Open Group Conference on The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum and setting standards for security and reliability.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: The Open Group.

Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you're listening to BriefingsDirect.

Today, we present a sponsored podcast discussion in conjunction with The Open Group Conference in Austin, Texas, the week of July 18, 2011.

We've assembled a distinguished panel to update us on The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum, also known as the OTTF, and an accreditation process to help technology acquirers and buyers safely conduct global procurement and supply chain commerce. [Disclosure: The Open Group is a Sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

We'll examine how the security risk for many companies and organizations has only grown, even as these companies form essential partnerships and integral supplier relationships. So, how can all the players in a technology ecosystem gain assurances that the other participants are adhering to best practices and taking the proper precautions?

Here to help us better understand how established standard best practices and an associated accreditation approach can help make supply chains stronger and safer is our panel.

We're here with Dave Lounsbury, the Chief Technical Officer at The Open Group. Welcome back, Dave.

Dave Lounsbury: Hello Dana. How are you?

Gardner: Great. We are also here with Steve Lipner, Senior Director of Security Engineering Strategy in the Trustworthy Computing Security at Microsoft. Welcome back, Steve.

Steve Lipner: Hi, Dana. Glad to be here.

Gardner: We're here also with Joshua Brickman, Director of the Federal Certification Program Office at CA Technologies. Welcome, Joshua.

Joshua Brickman: Thanks for having me.

Gardner: And, we're here too with Andras Szakal. He's the Vice President and CTO of IBM’s Federal Software Group. Welcome back, Andras.

Andras Szakal: Thank you very much, Dana. I appreciate it.

Gardner: Dave, let's start with you. We've heard so much lately about "hacktivism," break-ins, and people being compromised. These are some very prominent big companies, both public and private. How important is it that we start to engage more with things like the OTTF?

No backup plan

Lounsbury: Dana, a great quote coming out of this week’s conference was that we have moved the entire world’s economy to being dependent on the Internet, without a backup plan. Anyone who looks at the world economy will see, not only are we dependent on it for exchange of value in many cases, but even information about how our daily lives are run, traffic, health information, and things like that.

It's becoming increasingly vitally important that we understand all the aspects of what it means to have trust in the chain of components that deliver that connectivity to us, not just as technologists, but as people who live in the world.

Gardner: Steve Lipner, your thoughts on how this problem seems to be only getting worse?

Lipner: Well, the attackers are becoming more determined and more visible across the Internet ecosystem. Vendors have stepped up to improve the security of their product offerings, but customers are concerned. A lot of what we're doing in The Open Group and in the OTTF is about trying to give them additional confidence of what vendors are doing, as well as inform vendors what they should be doing.

Gardner: Joshua Brickman, this is obviously a big topic and a very large and complex area. From your perspective, what is it that the OTTF is good at? What is it focused on? What should we be looking to it for in terms of benefit in this overall security issue?

Brickman: One of the things that I really like about this group is that you have all of the leaders, everybody who is important in this space, working together with one common goal.

Today, we had a discussion where one of the things we were thinking about is, whether there's a 100 percent fail-safe solution to cyber? And there really isn't. There is just a bar that you can set, and the question is how much do you want to make the attackers spend, before they can get over that bar? What we're going to try to do is establish that level, and working together, I feel very encouraged that we are getting there, so far.

Gardner: Andras, we are not just trying to set the bar, but we're also trying to enforce, or at least have clarity into, what other players in an ecosystem are doing. So that accreditation process seems to be essential.

Szakal: We're going to develop a standard, or are in the process of developing a specification and ultimately an accreditation program, that will validate suppliers and providers against that standard.

It's focused on building trust into a technology provider organization through this accreditation program, facilitated through either one of several different delivery mechanisms that we are working on. We're looking for this to become a global program, with global partners, as we move forward.

Gardner: It seems as if almost anyone is a potential target, and when someone decides to target you, you do seem to suffer. We've seen things with Booz Allen, RSA, and consumer organizations like Sony. Is this something that almost everyone needs to be more focused on? Are we at the point now where there is no such thing as turning back, Dave Lounsbury?

Global effort

Lounsbury: I think there is, and we have talked about this before. Any electronic or information system now is really built on components and software that are delivered from all around the globe. We have software that’s developed in one continent, hardware that’s developed in another, integrated in a third, and used globally.

So, we really do need to have the kinds of global standards and engagement that Andras has referred to, so that there is that one bar for all to clear in order to be considered as a provider of trusted components.

Gardner: As we've seen, there is a weak link in any chain, and the hackers or the cyber criminals or the state sponsored organizations will look for those weak links. That’s really where we need to focus.

Lounsbury: I would agree with that. In fact, some of the other outcomes of this week’s conference have been the change in these attacks, from just nuisance attacks, to ones that are focused on monetization of cyber crimes and exfiltration of data. So the spectrum of threats is increasing a lot. More sophisticated attackers are looking for narrower and narrower attack vectors each time. So we really do need to look across the spectrum of how this IT technology gets produced in order to address it.

Gardner: Steve Lipner, it certainly seems that the technology supply chain is essential. If there is weakness there, then it's difficult for the people who deploy those technologies to cover their bases. It seems that focusing on the technology providers, the ecosystems that support them, is a really necessary first step to taking this to a larger, either public or private, buyer side value.

Lipner: The tagline we have used for The Open Group TTF is "Build with Integrity, Buy with Confidence." We certainly understand that customers want to have confidence in the hardware and software of the IT products that they buy. We believe that it’s up to the suppliers, working together with other members of the IT community, to identify best practices and then articulate them, so that organizations up and down the supply chain will know what they ought to be doing to ensure that customer confidence.

Gardner: Let's take a step back and get a little bit of a sense of where this process that you are all involved with is. I know you're all on working groups and in other ways involved in moving this forward, but it's been about six months now since The OTTF was developed initially, and there was a white paper to explain that.

Perhaps, one of you will volunteer to give us sort of a state of affairs where things are,. Then, we'd also like to hear an update about what's been going on here in Austin. Anyone?

Szakal: Well, as the chair, I have the responsibility of keeping track of our milestones, so I'll take that one.

A, we completed the white paper earlier this year, in the first quarter. The white paper was visionary in nature, and it was obviously designed to help our constituents understand the goals of the OTTF.

However, in order to actually make this a normative specification and design a program, around which you would have conformance and be able to measure suppliers’ conformity to that specification, we have to develop a specification with normative language.

First draft

We're finishing that up as we speak and we are going to have a first draft here within the next month. We're looking to have that entire specification go through company review in the fourth quarter of this year.

Simultaneously, we'll be working on the accreditation policy and conformance criteria and evidence requirements necessary to actually have an accreditation program, while continuing to liaise with other evaluation schemes that are interested in partnering with us. In a global international environment, that’s very important, because there exist more than one of these regimes that we will have to exist, coexist, and partner with.

Over the next year, we'll have completed the accreditation program and have begun testing of the process, probably having to make some adjustments along the way. We're looking at sometime within the first half of 2012 for having a completed program to begin ramping up.

Gardner: Is there an update on the public sector's, or in the U.S., the federal government’s, role in this? Are they active? Are they leading? How would you characterize the public role or where you would like to see that go?

Szakal: The forum itself continues to liaise with the government and all of our constituents. As you know, we have several government members that are part of the TTF and they are just as important as any of the other members. We continue to provide update to many of the governments that we are working with globally to ensure they understand the goals of the TTF and how they can provide value synergistically with what we are doing, as we would to them.

PWe continue to provide update to many of the governments that we are working with globally to ensure they understand the goals of the TTF.

Gardner: I'll throw this back out to the panel? How about the activities this week at the conference? What have been the progress or insights that you can point to from that?

Brickman: We've been meeting for the first couple of days and we have made tremendous progress on wrapping up our framework and getting it ready for the first review.

We've also been meeting with several government officials. I can’t say who they are, but what’s been good about it is that they're very positive on the work that we're doing, they support what we are doing and want to continue this discussion.

It’s very much a partnership, and we do feel like it’s not just an industry-led project, where we have participation from folks who could very much be the consumers of this initiative.

Gardner: Clearly, there are a lot of stakeholders around the world, across both the public and private domains.

Dave Lounsbury, what’s possible? What would we gain if this is done correctly? How would we tangibly look to improvements? I know that’s hard with security. It’s hard to point out what doesn’t happen, which is usually the result of proper planning, but how would you characterize the value of doing this all correctly say a year or two from now?

Awareness of security

Lounsbury: One of the trends we'll see is that people are increasingly going to be making decisions about what technology to produce and who to partner with, based on more awareness of security.

A very clear possible outcome is that there will be a set of simple guidelines and ones that can be implemented by a broad spectrum of vendors, where a consumer can look and say, "These folks have followed good practices. They have baked secure engineering, secure design, and secure supply chain processes into their thing, and therefore I am more comfortable in dealing with them as a partner."

Of course, what the means is that, not only do you end up with more confidence in your supply chain and the components for getting to that supply chain, but also it takes a little bit of work off your plate. You don’t have to invest as much in evaluating your vendors, because you can use commonly available and widely understood sort of best practices.

From the vendor perspective, it’s helpful because we're already seeing places where a company, like a financial services company, will go to a vendor and say, "We need to evaluate you. Here’s our checklist." Of course, the vendor would have to deal with many different checklists in order to close the business, and this will give them some common starting point.

Of course, everybody is going to customize and build on top of what that minimum bar is, depending on what kind of business they're in. But at least it gives everybody a common starting point, a common reference point, some common vocabulary for how they are going to talk about how they do those assessments and make those purchasing decisions.

This is a living type of an activity that you never really finish. There’s always something new to be done.

Gardner: Steve Lipner, do you think that this is going to find its way into a lot of RFPs, beginning a sales process, looking to have a major checkbox around these issues? Is that sort of how you see this unfolding?

Lipner: If we achieve the sort of success that we are aiming for and anticipating, you'll see requirements for the TTF, not only in RFPs, but also potentially in government policy documents around the world, basically aiming to increase the trust of broad collections of products that countries and companies use.

Gardner: Joshua Brickman, I have to imagine that this is a living type of an activity that you never really finish. There’s always something new to be done, a type of threat that’s evolving that needs to be reacted to. Would the TTF over time take on a larger role? Do you see it expanding into larger set of requirements, even as it adjusts to the contemporary landscape?

Brickman: That’s possible. I think that we are going to try to get something achievable out there in a timeframe that’s useful and see what sticks.

One of the things that will happen is that as companies start to go out and test this, as with any other standard, the 1.0 standard will evolve to something that will become more germane, and as Steve said, will hopefully be adopted worldwide.

Agile and useful

It’s absolutely possible. It could grow. I don’t think anybody wants it to become a behemoth. We want it to be agile, useful, and certainly something readable and achievable for companies that are not multinational billion dollar companies, but also companies that are just out there trying to sell their piece of the pie into the space. That’s ultimately the goal of all of us, to make sure that this is a reasonable achievement.

Lounsbury: Dana, I'd like to expand on what Joshua just said. This is another thing that has come out of our meetings this week. We've heard a number of times that governments, of course, feel the need to protect their infrastructure and their economies, but also have a realization that because of the rapid evolution of technology and the rapid evolution of security threats that it’s hard for them to keep up. It’s not really the right vehicle.

There really is a strong preference. The U.S. strategy on this is to let industry take the lead. One of the reasons for that is the fact that industry can evolve, in fact must evolve, at the pace of the commercial marketplace. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be in business.

So, we really do want to get that first stake in the ground and get this working, as Joshua said. But there is some expectation that, over time, the industry will drive the evolution of security practices and security policies, like the ones OTTF is developing at the pace of commercial market, so that governments won’t have to do that kind of regulation which may not keep up.

Gardner: Andras, any thoughts from your perspective on this ability to keep up in terms of market forces? How do you see the dynamic nature of this being able to be proactive instead of reactive?

One of our goals is to ensure that the viability of the specification itself, the best practices, are updated periodically.

Szakal: One of our goals is to ensure that the viability of the specification itself, the best practices, are updated periodically. We're talking about potentially yearly. And to include new techniques and the application of potentially new technologies to ensure that providers are implementing the best practices for development engineering, secure engineering, and supply chain integrity.

It's going to be very important for us to continue to evolve these best practices over a period of time and not allow them to fall into a state of static disrepair.

I'm very enthusiastic, because many of the members are very much in agreement that this is something that needs to be happening in order to actually raise the bar on the industry, as we move forward, and help the entire industry adopt the practices and then move forward in our journey to secure our critical infrastructure.

Gardner: Given that this has the potential of being a fairly rapidly evolving standard that may start really appearing in RFPs and be impactful for real world business success, how should enterprises get involved from the buy side? How should suppliers get involved from the sell side, given that this is seemingly a market driven, private enterprise driven activity?

I'll throw this out to the crowd. What's the responsibility from the buyers and the sellers to keep this active and to keep themselves up-to-date?

Lounsbury: Let me take the first stab at this. The reason we've been able to make the progress we have is that we've got the expertise in security from all of these major corporations and government agencies participating in the TTF. The best way to maintain that currency and maintain that drive is for people who have a problem, if you're on the buy side or expertise from either side, to come in and participate.

Hands-on awareness

You have got the hands-on awareness of the market, and bringing that in and adding that knowledge of what is needed to the specification and helping move its evolution along is absolutely the best thing to do.

That’s our steady state, and of course the way to get started on that is to go and look at the materials. The white paper is out there. I expect we will be doing snapshots of early versions of this that would be available, so people can take a look at those. Or, come to an Open Group Conference and learn about what we are doing.

Gardner: Anyone else have a reaction to that? I'm curious. Given that we are looking to the private sector and market forces to be the drivers of this, will they also be the drivers in terms of enforcement? Is this voluntary? One would hope that market forces reward those who seek accreditation and demonstrate adhesion to the standard, and that those who don't would suffer. Or is there a potential for more teeth and more enforcement? Again, I'll throw this out to the panel at large.

Szakal: As vendors, we'd would like to see minimal regulation and that's simply the nature of the beast. In order for us to conduct our business and lower the cost of market entry, I think that's important.

I think it's important that we provide leadership within the industry to ensure that we're following the best practices to ensure the integrity of the products that we provide. It's through that industry leadership that we will avoid potential damaging regulations across different regional environments.

It's important that we provide leadership within the industry to ensure that we're following the best practices to ensure the integrity of the products that we provide.

We certainly wouldn't want to see different regulations pop-up in different places globally. It makes for very messy technology insertion opportunity for us. We're hoping that by actually getting engaged and providing some self-regulation, we won't see additional government or international regulation.

Lipner: One of the things that my experience has taught me is that customers are very aware these days of security, product integrity, and the importance of suppliers paying attention to those issues. Having a robust program like the TTF and the certifications that it envisions will give customers confidence, and they will pay attention to that. That will change their behavior in the market even without formal regulations.

Gardner: Joshua Brickman, any thoughts on the self-regulation benefits? If that doesn’t work, is it self-correcting? Is there a natural approach that if this doesn’t work at first, that a couple of highly publicized incidents and corporations that suffer for not regulating themselves properly, would ride that ship, so to speak?

Brickman: First of all, industry setting the standard is an idea that has been thrown around a while, and I think that it's great to see us finally doing it in this area, because we know our stuff the best.

But as far as an incident indicating that it's not working, I don’t think so. We're going to try to set up a standard, whereby we're providing public information about what our products do and what we do as far as best practices. At the end of the day the acquiring agency, or whatever, is going to have to make decisions, and they're going to make intelligent decisions, based upon looking at folks that choose to go through this and folks that choose not to go through it.
It will continue

The bad news that continues to come out is going to continue to happen. The only thing that they'll be able to do is to look to the companies that are the experts in this to try to help them with that, and they are going to get some of that with the companies that go through these evaluations. There's no question about it.

At the end of the day, this accreditation program is going to shake out the products and companies that really do follow best practices for secure engineering and supply chain best practices.

Gardner: What should we expect next? As we heard, there has been a lot of activity here in Austin at the conference. We've got that white paper. We're working towards more mature definitions and approaching certification and accreditation types of activities. What's next? What milestone should we look to? Andras, this is for you.

Szakal: Around November, we're going to be going through company review of the specification and we'll be publishing that in the fourth quarter.

We'll also be liaising with our government and international partners during that time and we'll also be looking forward to several upcoming conferences within The Open Group where we conduct those activities. We're going to solicit some of our partners to be speaking during those events on our behalf.

The only thing that they'll be able to do is to look to the companies that are the experts in this to try to help them.

As we move into 2012, we'll be working on the accreditation program, specifically the conformance criteria and the accreditation policy, and liaising again with some of our international partners on this particular issue. Hopefully we will, if all things go well and according to plan, come out of 2012 with a viable program.

Gardner: Dave Lounsbury, any further thoughts about next steps, what people should be looking for, or even where they should go for more information?

Lounsbury: Andras has covered it well. Of course, you can always learn more by going to www.opengroup.org and looking on our website for information about the OTTF. You can find drafts of all the documents that have been made public so far, and there will be our white paper and, of course, more information about how to become involved.

Gardner: Very good. We've been getting an update about The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum, OTTF, and seeing how this can have a major impact from a private sector perspective and perhaps head off issues about lack of trust and lack of clarity in a complex evolving technology ecosystem environment.

I'd like to thank our guests. We've been joined by Dave Lounsbury, Chief Technical Officer at The Open Group. Thank you, sir.

Lounsbury: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: Steve Lipner, the Senior Director of Security Engineering Strategy in the Trustworthy Computing Security Group at Microsoft. Thank you, Steve.

Lipner: Thanks, Dana.

Gardner: Joshua Brickman, who is the Director of the Federal Certification Program Office in CA Technologies, has also joined us. Thank you.

Brickman: I enjoyed it very much.

Gardner: And Andras Szakal, Vice President and CTO of IBM’s Federal Software Group. Thank you, sir.

Szakal: It's my pleasure. Thank you very much, Dana.

Gardner: This discussion has come to you as a sponsored podcast in conjunction with The Open Group Conference in Austin, Texas. We are here the week of July 18, 2011. I want to thank our listeners as well.

This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. Don’t forget to come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: The Open Group.

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast from The Open Group Conference on The Open Group Trusted Technology Forum and setting standards for security and reliability. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2011. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

• Enterprise Architects Increasingly Leverage Advanced TOGAF9 for Innovation, Market Response, and Governance Benefits
• Open Group Cloud Panel Forecasts Cloud s Spurring Useful Transition Phase for Enterprise Architecture
• The Open Group's Cloud Work Group Advances Understanding of Cloud-Use Benefits for Enterprises
• Exploring the Role and Impact of the Open Trusted Technology Forum to Ensure Secure IT Products in Global Supply Chains

Cloud and SaaS Force a Rethinking of Integration and Middleware as Services for Services

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast of the role of cloud and SaaS in the changing landscape of application integration.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: Workday.

Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you're listening to BriefingsDirect. Today, we present a sponsored podcast discussion on how major trends around cloud, mobile, and software as a service (SaaS) are dramatically changing the requirements and benefits of application integration.

In many respects, the emphasis now on building hybrid business processes from a variety of far-flung sources forces a rethinking of integration and middleware. Integration capabilities themselves often need to be services in order to support a growing universe of internal and external constituent business process component services.

Here to explore the new era of integration-as-a-service and what it means for the future is David Clarke, Director of Integration at SaaS ERP provider Workday, and who is based in Dublin. Welcome, David. [Disclosure: Workday is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

David Clarke: Hi, Dana. Good to be here.

Gardner: As I said, the past is necessarily prologue when it comes to integration. Why have the platforms, applications, and data of the past forced a certain approach to integration, and why is that ill-suited to what we are expecting and seeing more of every day with cloud and SaaS?

Clarke: One thing is that historically applications were built, structured, and architected in very different ways. When you tried to knit those things together, there was quite a diverse set of requirements, which needed to be addressed. And, there was a very wide variation in their architectures. So that implied a very general-purpose middleware that had to cope with many different and very diverse scenarios. That was one factor.

A second factor was that the middleware and the integration tended to come as an afterthought. So, it couldn't really influence or inform the way that the application platforms themselves were designed.

Those two things together made it more difficult than it needed to be. Then, what we're starting to see -- and what we are certainly hopeful of seeing in this generation built around cloud -- is that those two things aren’t necessarily the case. So, we can benefit more from having integration designed in upfront, and having a more consistent overall architecture, so that it’s essentially easier for it to plug into.

One third variable might be that customers historically also discounted or underestimated the likely impact or complexity of doing integration. They tended to come to them as an afterthought and then struggled with them. This time around, to some extent, they've been burned by previous generations. So they're more wary, and are additionally including integration more in their upfront planning.

Gardner: We're not necessarily talking about throwing the baby out with the bath water here. We're still going to be doing integrations in the traditional way. It's just that we need to add another category, and it seems that there is a benefit in that. We can use many of the tools, many of the underlying technologies that supported traditional middleware, and extend that into this services environment.

Clarke: Correct. There’s nothing fundamentally new, in some sense. I've worked in several generations of integration and middleware technology, and each one is a refinement of the past, and you're standing on the shoulders of giants, to badly paraphrase Newton.

Packaged and presented

A lot of the underlying technology you're using for integration, a lot of the underlying concepts, are not that new. It's just the way that they're being packaged and presented. In some cases, it's the protocols that we're using, and certainly some of the use models. But the ways you're accessing them and consuming them are different. So, it is in that sense [this is] evolutionary.

Gardner: What has probably changed the most are the requirements. The problem set that we're addressing has changed. How has it changed? Perhaps this would be an opportunity for you as well to explain what Workday is, what it does, and how you came to be a part of the Workday team.

Clarke: Historically, integration technology was sold as a stand-alone and on-premise offering. Companies would buy or build applications, and then, as their business processes evolved, they found a need to integrate them and connect them together. So, they would license middleware and use that to achieve that.

There have been a couple of generations of middleware technology companies that have helped customers do this. They shared some of the characteristics around certain generations of technology.

So you had companies like TIBCO Software in the early days, folks from the financial sectors. Then you had companies like BEA Systems focused on the Java generation of middleware and application servers. And then, you had more XML and web services-centric companies.

As a middleware vendor, you're trying to solve essentially any and every problem.

You had those three generations, but what was common to them all was that they were quite divorced from the application experience. And that was my background in pure middleware, building and selling that technology.

A strength and a weakness of that was that it was very general purpose. As a middleware vendor, you're trying to solve essentially any and every problem. To draw on the Eclipse Foundation's motto: middleware is a general-purpose platform that can do everything or nothing. In many cases, people ended up spending a lot of money on this general-purpose middleware and essentially achieving nothing, which was frustrating.

Workday is an applications company. We're an on-demand apps company and we build and serve human capital management (HCM), financials, and enterprise resource planning (ERP) application suites.

Cape Clear, which was my former company, was acquired by Workday about three years ago. We were partners, but as Workday’s business expanded significantly, they saw that providing a compelling and a differentiated integration experience in the context of this new cloud architecture was going to be something that was very important to them. So they acquired Cape Clear and we became part of the overall Workday organization.

The first surprise to me was that I had always worked for companies where it was difficult essentially to explain what we did. You couldn't really go to your grandmother and describe middleware technology, whereas you could at least go and explain financial systems or HCM systems.

Overarching context

That then flowed all the way down through to how we positioned, thought about, described, and marketed the technology. It has certainly been my experience that it's a lot easier to describe, position, plan, and explain integration technology when you have this overarching context of an application domain.

That's been very instructive and has interesting implications in the future for the nature, or indeed the existence, of a stand-alone in the middleware market. That might be an interesting topic we could talk about later.

The other observation is that the consistency of these use cases make our jobs somewhat easier. What's also been interesting is the nature of the load and the scale profiles that we're seeing.

A lot of middleware applications that we used to see were technically complex to achieve, but were often relatively low volume or relatively low scale. But, in large-scale companies, when you're dealing with their core systems of record around financials and HCM, you're looking at very large data sets, with very significant scalability requirements, and very significant performance constraints. That has interesting implications for how you think about and implement your middleware solutions.

Gardner: So there seem to be two fundamental things going on here. One, is taking integration to the on-demand or SaaS domain, but second, there is also this embedding integration functionality into the application.

One of the perpetual holy grails of the middleware industry, when it was a stand-alone undertaking was to find a way to express and expose middleware and integration concepts in a way that they could be used by mere mortals.

People, when they use Workday -- whether they are human resources professionals or employees in these organizations, whether they're partners or suppliers to these enterprises that are using Workday -- they're not thinking about integration. They're thinking about human resources, benefits, payroll, and insurance.

Tell me how this shift to on-demand, as well as embedding into the application, changes the requirements. How does someone like yourself who is crafting the middleware integration capabilities need to shift their thinking in order to go “to the cloud,” but also become part-and-parcel with the application?

Clarke: One of the perpetual holy grails of the middleware industry, when it was a stand-alone undertaking, was to find a way to express and expose middleware and integration concepts in a way that they could be used by mere mortals, by business analysts, by people who weren't necessarily very deep technologists with deep technology expertise.

In my experience, the middleware industry never achieved that. So, they didn't really ever find a metaphor or a use model that enabled less skilled, but nonetheless technically savvy, people to use their products.

As you observe in the applications game, you absolutely have to get there, because fundamentally what you're doing here is you are enabling companies and individuals to solve business problems and application problems. The integration arises as a necessity of that or as a consequence of that. In and of itself, it isn't useful.

Designing applications

The most specific thing that we've seen is how we build, manipulate, and use extremely sophisticated integration technology. We spend a lot of our time thinking about how to design that into the application, so that it can be experienced and consumed by users of the application who don’t know anything about XML, Java, web protocols, or anything like that.

To give you one very simple example, the most common use case of all probably is people getting data, perhaps from our system, doing something with it -- a simple transformation -- and then delivering it or putting it somewhere else, perhaps into our system.

That model of "get, transform, and put" is intuitively straightforward, but historically that has always been realized in a complicated way in the middleware stack. We've built a very simple tool inside of our application, and it's now the most heavily used integration component in our system.

Business analysts can very easily and visually define what they are getting and putting it in terms of the business concepts and the business objects they understand. They can define very simple transformations, for example, going from a payroll input to a check, or going from a report of absences by departments to a payroll input.

They're consuming and using integration technologies in a very natural way in the context of their day-to-day working in the web layer in these systems. They're not programmers. They're not developers. They're not thinking about it that way.

It's quite empowering for the teams that we have had working on this technology to see if it's usable in that way by the business analysts here. It's the closest I've seen people get to capturing this unicorn of enabling integration technology to be actually used by business people.

It's the closest I've seen people get to capturing this unicorn of enabling integration technology to be actually used by business people.

Gardner: While you have put quite a bit of emphasis on the tool side in order to make this something that mere mortals can adjust and operate, you've also done a lot of heavy lifting on the connections side. You recognized that in order to be successful with an integration platform, you had to find the means in which to integrate to a vast variety of different types of technologies, services, data, and so forth. Tell me what you've done, not only on the usability, but on the applicability across a growing universe of connection points.

Clarke: That’s another interesting area. As you say, there are thousands or millions of different types of endpoints out there. This being software, it can map any data format to any other data format, but that’s a trivial and uninformative statement, because it doesn’t help you get a specific job done.

Essentially what we've been trying to do is identify categories of target systems and target processes that we need to integrate with and try to optimize and focus our efforts on that.

For example, pretty much the majority of our customers have a need to integrate to and from benefit systems for 401(k), healthcare, dental, visual plans, and so forth. It's an extremely common use case. But, there is still a wide diversity of benefits providers and a wide variety of formats that they use.

We've studied the multiple hundreds of those benefits providers that we've experienced by working with our customers and we've abstracted out the most common format scenarios, data structures, and so forth, and we have built that into our integration layer.

Configure your data set

You can very easily and rapidly and without programming configure your specific data set, so that it can be mapped into and out of your specific set of benefits providers, without needing to write any code or build a custom integration.

We've done that domain analysis in a variety of areas, including but not limited to benefits. We've done it for payroll and for certain kinds of financial categories as well. That's what's enabling us to do this in a scalable and repeatable way, because we don’t want to just give people a raw set of tools and say, "Here, use these to map anything to anything else." It's just not a good experience for the users.

Gardner: David, you mentioned that Cape Clear was acquired by Workday about three years ago, and Workday has been growing very rapidly. Have you been surprised by the adoption rate and pattern around SaaS, and now we're talking about cloud and hybrid cloud? Did this happen faster than you were expecting, because it certainly caught me by surprise.

Clarke: Totally. I remember when we originally became part of Workday several years ago, we were doing some sort of product planning and strategic thinking about how we were going to integrate the product lines and position them going forward. One of the things we had in our roadmap at the time was this idea of an appliance. So we said, "Look, we can envision the future, where all the integration is done in the cloud, but we frankly think it's like a long way off. We think that it's some years off."

For that reason, we articulated and embarked on a path of offering what we were calling an appliance, which essentially would have been an on-premise component to the integration stack or of the integration stack that would be deployed at customer sites. We thought the world wasn’t going to be ready soon enough to put the integration technology and stack in the cloud as well.

It just became clearer and clearer to us that there was an appetite and a willingness in our customer and prospect base to use this technology in the cloud.

Happily that turned out to have been incorrect. Over the course of the ensuing 12 months, it just became clearer and clearer to us that there was an appetite and a willingness in our customer and prospect base to use this technology in the cloud.

We never really went ahead with that appliance concept, it didn’t get productized. We never used it. We don’t need to use it. And now, as I have conversations with customers and with prospects, it just is not an issue.

In terms of it being any kind of philosophical or in principle difficulty or challenge, it has just gone away. It totally surprised me, as well, because I expected it to happen, but thought it would take a lot longer to get to where it has got to already.

Gardner: There is a certain irony, because we were all involved with service-oriented architecture (SOA) and kept waiting for that to get traction, and were a little bit distressed that it wasn’t catching on. Then, lo and behold, this concept of SaaS and cloud leapfrogs and catches on much faster than we thought. So, it is an interesting time.

When we go back to enterprises, we recognize that this “consumerization” of IT is taking place, where the end-users, the zeitgeist of expectations, is now at the point where they want IT in the enterprise to work as well and in the same manner as it does for their personal lives. How does that shift the thinking of an enterprise architect?

Clarke: Superficially, enterprise architects are under a lot of pressure to, as you say, to present technologies in ways that are more familiar to customers from their personal lives. The most specific example of that is the embrace of mobile technologies. This isn't a huge surprise. It's been a pretty consistent pattern over a number of years that workforce mobility is a major influence on product requirements.

Mobile devices

We've seen that very significant proportions of access to our system is via mobile devices. That informs our planning and our system architecture. We're invested heavily in mobile technologies -- iPad, Android, BlackBerry, and other clients. In my experience, that’s something that's new, with the customer enterprise architects. This is something they have to articulate, defend, and embrace.

Historically, they would have been more concerned with the core issues of scalability, reliability, and availability. Now, they've got more time to think about these things, because we as SaaS vendors have taken a lot of things that they used to do off of their plates.

Historically, a lot of time was spent by enterprise architects worrying about the scalability and reliability of the enterprise application deployments that they had, and now that’s gone away. They get a much higher service level agreement (SLA) than they ever managed to operate by themselves when they run their own systems.

So, while they have different and new things to think about because of the cloud and mobility, they also have more head space or latitude to do that, because we have taken some of the pain that they used to have away.

Gardner: I suppose that as implications pan out around these issues, there will be a shift in economics as well, whereby you would pay separately and perhaps on a capital and then operating basis for integration.

They also have more headspace or latitude to do that, because we have taken some of the pain that they used to have away from them.

If integration by companies like Workday becomes part-and-parcel of the application services -- and you pay for it on an operating basis only -- how do traditional business models and economics around middleware and integration survive? How do you see this transition working, not only for the functionality and the architecture, but in dollars and cents?

Clarke: I'd certainly hate to be out there trying to sell middleware offerings stand-alone right now, and clearly there have been visible consolidations in this space. I mentioned BEA earlier as being the standard bearer of the enterprise Java generation of middleware that’s been acquired by Oracle.

They are essentially part of the application stack, and I'm sure they still sell and license stand-alone middleware. Obviously, the Oracle solutions are all on-premise, so they're still doing on-premise stuff at that level. But, I would imagine that the economics of the BEA offering is folded very much into the economics of the Oracle application offering.

In the web services generation of middleware and integration, which essentially came after the enterprise Java tier, and then before the SOA tier, there was a pretty rapid commoditization. So, this phenomenon was already starting to happen, even before the cloud economics were fully in play.

Then, there was essentially an increased dependence or relevance of open source technologies -- Spring, JackBe, free stacks -- that enabled integration to happen. That commoditization was already starting to happen.

Open source pressure

So even before the advent of the cloud and the clear economic pressure that put on stand-alone integration, there was already a separate pressure that was originating from open source. Those two things together have, in my view, made it pretty difficult to sustain or to conceive a sustainable integration model.

A lot of the investment dollars that have gone into something like integration market are now going elsewhere in infrastructure. They're going into storage. They're going into availability. They're going certainly to cloud platforms. It would need to be a brave venture capitalist now who would write a check to a company coming in with a bright idea for a new on-premise middleware stack. So that business is gone.

Gardner: We're also seeing some investment around taking open source middleware and integration capabilities and extending them to the cloud. It's not as difficult for an open source company, because their monetization has been around maintenance and support, more of an operating expense. We certainly haven’t seen too much in the way of a general-purpose integration cloud from any of the traditional on-premises middleware vendors.

Do you think in 10 years, or maybe 5, we won’t even be thinking about integration? It will really be a service, a cloud service, and perhaps it will evolve to be a community approach. Those people who need to be connected to one another will either structurally move toward some standardization or, perhaps in a more ad hoc or organic way, provide the means by which they could more easily play well together?

Clarke: There are a couple of things that we see happening here. I'll make two main observations in this area.

There is an important difference between a general-purpose platform or integration platform and then a more specific one, which is centered around a particular application domain. Workday is about the latter.

First, at the risk of losing half our audience with the jargon, there is an important difference between a general-purpose platform or integration platform and then a more specific one, which is centered around a particular application domain. Workday is about the latter.

We're building a very powerful set of cloud technologies, including an integration cloud or an integration platform in the cloud, but it’s very focused on connecting essentially to and from Workday, and making that very easy from a variety of places and to a variety of places.

What we're not trying to create is a general-purpose platform, an associated marketplace, in the way that maybe somebody like Salesforce.com is doing with AppExchange or Google with App Engine for app development. In a sense, our scope is narrower in that way, and that’s just how we're choosing to prosecute the opportunity, because it’s harder to establish a very horizontal platform and it’s just difficult to do.

I referred earlier to the problem that middleware companies traditionally have of doing everything and nothing. When you have a purely horizontal platform that can offer any integration or any application, it’s difficult to see exactly which ones are going to be the ones that get it going.

The way we're doing this is therefore more specific. We have a similar set of technologies and so on, but we're really basing it very much around the use case that we see for Workday. It’s very grounded in benefits integrations, payroll integrations, financial integrations, payment integrations. And every one of our deployments has tens, dozens, hundreds of these integrations. We're constantly building very significant volume, very significant usage, and very significant experience.

Developing marketplace

I can see that developing into a marketplace in a limited way around some of those key areas and possibly broadening from there.

That's one of the interesting areas of distinction between the strategies of the platform vendors as to how expansive their vision is. Obviously expansive visions are interesting and creating horizontal platforms is interesting, but it’s more speculative, it’s riskier, and it takes a long time. We are more on the specific side of that.

You mentioned collaborating and how this area of business processes and people collaborating in the community. I referred earlier to this idea that we're focusing on these key use cases. What’s arising from those key use cases is a relatively small set of documents and document formats that are common to these problem areas.

Lately, I've been reading, or rereading, some of the RosettaNet stuff. RosettaNet has been around forever. It was originally created in the early '80s. As you know, it was essentially a set of documents, standard documents, interchange formats for the semiconductor or the technology manufacturing industry, and it has been very successful, not very prominent or popular, but very successful.

What we see is something similar to RosettaNet starting to happen in the application domain where, when you are dealing with payroll providers, there is a certain core set of data that gets sent around. We have integrated to many dozens of them and we have abstracted that into a core documentary that reflects the set of information and how it needs to be formatted and how it needs to be processed.

These are very good vectors for cooperation and for collaboration around integrations, and they're a good locus around which communities can develop standardized documents.

In fact, we now have a couple of payroll partners who are directly consuming that payroll format from us. So, in the same way that there are certain HR XML standards for benefits data, we can see other ones emerging in other areas of the application space.

These are very good vectors for cooperation and for collaboration around integrations, and they're a good locus around which communities can develop standardized documents, which is the basis for integration. That’s intriguing to me, because it all derives from that very specific set of use cases that I just never really saw as a general-purpose integration vendor.

Gardner: Getting back to adoption patterns and economics, it seems as if what you are proposing, and what Workday is supporting, is this application-level benefit. A business process, like a network, is perhaps more valuable as the number of participants in the process increases, and become able to participate with a fairly low level of complexity and friction.

It's sort of a derivative of Metcalfe's Law, but at the business process level, which is quite different than trying to corral an integration community around a specific platform with the intent of getting more people on that platform and having a long-term flow of license revenue as a result.

So, if we make this shift to a Metcalfe's law-type of "the more participants, the more valuable it is to all of those participants," shouldn’t we expect a little bit of a different world around integration in the next few years?

Business process

Clarke: That’s right, because of the distinction you mentioned. We don’t really see or envisage this very transactional marketplace, where you just have people buying a round of maps or integrations and installing them. We see it happening in the context of a business process.

For example, hiring. As somebody hires somebody into Workday, there are typically many integration points in that business process -- background checking, provisioning of security cards, and creation of email accounts. There is a whole set of integration points. We're increasingly looking to enable third parties to easily plug-in into those integration points in a small way, for provisioning an email account, or in a big way, like managing a whole payroll process.

It’s that idea of these integrations as being just touch points and jumping-off points from an overall business process, which is quite a different vision from writing cool, stand-alone apps that you can then find and store from inside of our platform marketplace.

It’s that idea of an extended business process where the partners and partner ISVs and customers can collaborate very easily, and not just at install time or provisioning time, but also when these processes are running and things go wrong, if things fail or errors arise.

You also need a very integrated exception handling process, so that customers can rapidly diagnose and correct these errors when they arise. Then, they have a feeling of being in a consistent environment and not like a feeling of having 20 or 30 totally unrelated applications executing that don’t collaborate and don’t know about each other and aren’t executing the context within the same business process. We're keen to make that experience seamless.

You also need a very integrated exception handling process, so that customers can rapidly diagnose and correct these errors when they arise.

Gardner: I can also see where there is a high incentive for the participants in a supply chain or a value chain of some sort to make integration work. So perhaps there is an incentive toward cooperation in ways that we hadn’t seen before. I am thinking of, at least in the human resources field, where it’s in my best interest as an insurance company or as a payroll benefits provider, for example, to work with the SaaS or cloud provider in this regard -- to the betterment of our mutual end users.

Do you already see that the perception of cooperation for integration is at a different plane? Where do you expect that to go?

Clarke: Totally, already. Increasingly -- pick an area, but let's say for learning management or something -- if we integrate, or if multiple people integrate to us or from us, then customers already are starting to expect that those integrations exist.

Now they're starting to ask about how good they are, what's the nature of them, what SLAs can they expect here? The customers are presuming that an integration, certainly between Workday and some other cloud-based service, either exists already or is very easy and doable.

But they're looking through that, because they're taking the integration technology level questions for granted. They're saying, "Given that I can make such an integration work, how is it really going to work, what's the SLA, what happens if things go wrong, what happens when things fail?"

What's really interesting to me is that customers are increasingly sophisticated about exploring the edge cases, which they have seen happen before and have heard about them before. They're coming to us upfront and saying, "What happens if I have issues when my payroll runs? Who do I go to? How do you manage that? How do you guys work with each other?"

Consistent information

We, therefore, are learning from our customers and we're going to our ISV and services partners, like our payroll partners, our learning management partners, our background checking partners and saying, "Here is the contract that our customers expect. Here is the service that they expect." They're going to ask us and we want to be able to say that this partner tests against every single update and every single revision of the Workday software. They will handle a seamless support process where you call one number and you get a consistent set of information.

Customers are really looking through the mere fact of a technical integration existing and asking about what is my experience going to be and actually using this day-to-day across 50 geographies and across population of 20,000 employees. I want that to be easy.

It’s a testament to the increasing sophistication of the integration technology that people can take that for granted. But as I say, it’s having these increasingly interesting and downstream effects in terms of what people are expecting from the business experience of using these integration systems in the context of a composite business process that extend beyond just one company.

Gardner: Moving toward closing up our conversation, David, you have raised the issue here about that one throat to choke, if you will. When you have a massive, complex, integration landscape, does it makes sense to focus on the application provider as that point of responsibility and authority? Or does it have to be federated?

Have you seen any models emerge, something that we probably could not have predicted but needs to happen on its own, in a real world setting that indicates how that issue of trust and authority might pan out?

Clarke: What we are gradually feeling our way toward here is that for us that’s the central concept of this federation of companies. We think obviously of Workday being in the middle of that. It depends on what your perspective is, but you have this federation of companies collaborating to provide the service ultimately, and the question is, where do they choke?

And it's not realistic to say that you can always come to Workday, because if we are integrating to a payroll system on behalf of somebody else, and we correctly start off and run the payroll or send the payroll requests, and then there is an error at the other end, the error is happening ultimately in the other payroll engine. We can't debug that. We can't look at what happened. We don't necessarily even know what the data is.

As we run any integration in our cloud, there is a very consistent set of diagnostics, reporting, metrics, error handling, error tracking that is generated and that's consistent.

We need a consistent experience for the customer and how that gets supported and diagnosed. Specifically, what it means for us today is that, as we run any integration in our cloud, there is a very consistent set of diagnostics, reporting, metrics, error handling, error tracking that is generated and that's consistent across the many types of integrations that we run.

Again, as our partners become more savvy at working with us, and they know more about that, they can then more consistently offer resolution and support to the customers in the context of the overall Workday support process.

For us, it’s really a way of building this extended and consistent network of support capability and of trust. Where customers have consistent experiences, they have consistent expectations around how and when they get support.

The most frustrating thing is when you are calling one company and they're telling you to call the other company, and there isn’t any consistency or it’s hard to get to the bottom of that. We're hopeful that enlightened integrations around business processes, between collaborating companies, as I have described, will help me to get some of that.

Gardner: It certainly sounds like in the coming years the determining factors of who will be the winner in cloud integration won't be necessarily the one with the biggest, baddest platform -- although that's certainly important. But the one that demonstrates the trust, the SLA response, and maintenance, and generally who becomes a good partner in a diverse and expanding ecosystem will win.

Clarke: That's right. The technology is important, but it's not enough. People just don't just want technology. They want well-intentioned and an honest collaboration between their vendors to help them do the stuff efficiently.

Gardner: Very good. Thanks. You've been listening to a sponsored BriefingsDirect podcast on how major trends around cloud, mobile, and SaaS are dramatically changing requirements and benefits of integration. For more information on Workday's integration as a service, go to http://www.workday.com/solutions/technology/integration_cloud.php.

I would like to thank our guest. We have been here with David Clarke, Director of Integration at Workday. Thanks so much, David.

Clarke: Thanks, Dana.

Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. Thanks again for listening, and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: Workday.

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast of the role of cloud and SaaS in the changing landscape of application integration. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2011. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

• Workday Integration Cloud Debut Raises Bar on Integration as Service, Deeply Ingrains Integration as Apps Function
• Case Study: How Fairchild Semiconductor Leverages the Workday Integration Cloud
• Workday Builds Out SaaS Bellwether for Human Capital Management Services and Cost Controls
• Delivering Data Analytics Through Workday SaaS ERP Apps Empower Business Managers at Actual Decision Points

SaaS PPM from HP Helps Deloitte-Australia Streamline Top-Level Decision Making

Transcript of a sponsored BriefingsDirect podcast, part of a series on application lifecycle management and HP ALM 11.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a BriefingsDirect podcast on Deloitte-Australia, and how their business has benefited from leveraging the software-as-a-service (SaaS) model for project and portfolio management (PPM) activities.

We spoke to Deloitte-Australia at a recent conference to explore some major enterprise software and solutions, trends and innovations making news across HP’s ecosystem of customers, partners, and developers.

I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions and I’ll be your host as we learn more about Deloitte’s innovative use of SaaS hosting for non-core applications. First, please join me in welcoming Ferne King, director within the Investment and Growth Forum at Deloitte-Australia in Melbourne. Welcome.

It’s the only solution that we found in the marketplace that would help us support and have visibility into the investments we were going to make.

Ferne King: Thank you.

Gardner: Tell me, Ferne, what led up to the use of SaaS for PPM? Why did this particular model seem to make sense?

King: The SaaS model made sense to us, because we had a strategic direction in our firm that any non-core application’s strategic intent was to have them as SaaS.

Gardner: What is it about PPM, in particular, that made this a leading candidate for that initiative?

King: It’s the only solution that we found in the marketplace that would help us support and have visibility into the investments we were going to make for ourselves internally around the growth and the maintenance of what we did internally within our own firm.

Gardner: Perhaps for our listeners’ benefit, you could explain a little bit about what you do there at Deloitte in Australia and the extent to which you went with this PPM solution. How far and wide?

King: Deloitte-Australia is approximately 5,000 practitioners. In 2010, our revenue was A$850 million. We provide professional services to public and private clients, and we are now globally the largest professional services firm. We utilize PPM internally within the firm, and that helps us to understand that portfolio and prioritization. Deloitte-UK practice and Deloitte-America practice in their consulting areas use PPM to go to the market and help manage deliver investments with their client base.

Gardner: From a high level, what have been some of the benefits of PPM in general, but furthermore, the SaaS deployment method?

Three benefits

King: The three benefits of PPM, primarily for us has been understanding that portfolio and linking that to our strategy. For example, our executive will have a series of business objectives they want to achieve in the Australian practice.

By utilizing PPM, we can understand what is going on within the firm that’s meeting those objectives, and then, more importantly for them, with the gap, and then they can take the action on the gap. That’s the number one priority. The number two priority is being able to communicate to our people within the practice the particulars of change.

For example, over the next quarter, what will our practitioners in the firm see as a result of all of these myriad of initiatives going on, whether it’s a SaaS service HR system or whether it’s a new product and service that they can take to market. Whatever change is coming, we can better communicate that to them within their organization.

Our third priority which the PPM product helps with discipline is our area of delivery. So, in our project management methodology, it helps us improve our disciplines. We had a journey of 18 months of doing things manually and then we brought PPM to technology enable what we were doing manually.

From a SaaS perspective, the benefit we’ve achieved there is that we can focus our people on the right things. Instead of having our people focused on what hardware, what platform, what change request, what design do we need to be happening, we can focus on what our to-be process should be, what our design should be. Then we basically hand that over the fence to the SaaS team, which then help execute that.

We don’t have to stand in a queue within our own IT group and look for a change window. We can make changes every Wednesday, every Sunday, 12 months of the year, and that works for us.

Gardner: Great. Now you described how you’ve decided on the prioritization of moving to SaaS as non-core. But, forgive me, PPM, the way you described it, it sounds rather mission critical. How was it that you decided on this, even though it seems so pertinent and perhaps it forms mortar to other types of business processes?

King: We would say it’s non-core, but high value. Just because it’s non-core, doesn’t mean that it’s not a top priority. Our firm has approximately 2,500 applications within our Australian practice. PPM, at our executive level, is seen as one of our top 10 applications to help our executive, our partners, the senior groups of our firm register ideas to help our business grow and be maintained.

So, it’s high value but it’s not part of our core practice suite. It doesn’t bring in revenue and it doesn’t keep the lights on, but it helps us manage our business.

Gardner: Could you give me a sense of the timeline? Is this something that is relatively new, something that you're well into, something that you're looking at through the rear-view mirror and assessing? Where are we within your roll-out of this PPM for SaaS?

The roadmap

King: I’d answer that in the question of where are we in our roadmap of strategic enterprise portfolio management. In that journey, we're four years in and we are two years into technology enablement. We undertook the journey four years ago to go down strategic portfolio management and we lasted about 18 months to 2 years, manually developing and understanding our methodology, understanding the value where we wanted to go to.

In our second year we technology enabled that to help us execute more effectively, speed to value, time to value, and now we are entering our third year into the maturity model of that.

Gardner: When you describe this as something that doesn’t directly impact your bottom-line, it certainly sounds as if it’s impacting the users within your organization. What’s been the feedback from the front lines, those who are involved with are actually using this? Has this been something that they’ve embraced or something they needed to learn to embrace over time?

King: Fantastic results, particularly at the executive levels who are the ones who pay for us to create the time to work on this. Deloitte itself has taken the transformation over the years, If anybody in the market follows the professional services, industry group areas, Deloitte globally is 160,000 practitioners and over 250 billion of revenue on FY10. We're coming together and have been taking a journey for some time to be as one.

So, if you're a client in the marketplace, you don’t have to think about what door you need to enter the Deloitte world. You enter one door and you get service from whatever service group you need.

PPM has enabled us to help the executive achieve their vision of firm-wide visibility of the enterprise investments we are making to improve our growth and support our maintenance.

If I take the example of three years ago, our tax group would only be interested in what’s happening in their tax group. Our consultant group would really only be interested in what’s happening in the consultant group.

Now that we are acting as one, the tax service line lead and the consulting service line lead would like visibility of what’s happening firm wide. PPM is now enabling us to do that.

What I would summarize there is that PPM has enabled us to help the executive achieve their vision of firm-wide visibility of the enterprise investments we are making to improve our growth and support our maintenance.

Gardner: Tell me if you could, Ferne, a little bit about how you came to the HP solution. What was it that you were looking for in a solution and what requirements did you feel were most important in leading up to that choice?

King: First of all, probably, 27 years experience with project delivery, coming from an engineering construction background, getting very detailed knowledge over the years about the one-on-one delivery components and dealing with a lot of vendors over the years in the client marketplace.

So, well-versed in what we needed and well-versed in what was available out there in the marketplace. When we went to market looking for a partner and a vendor solution, we were very clear on what we wanted. HP was are able to meet that.

I actually took my own role out of the scoring process. We helped put scripts together, scenarios for our vendors to come and demonstrate to us how we were going to achieve meeting our objectives. Then, we brought people around the table from that business with a scoring method, and HP won on that scoring method.

Gardner: With you being fully into this project and for those listening who might be considering moving to a more holistic PPM approach and perhaps evaluating the different sourcing options, is there anything in hindsight that you could offer in terms of advice when beginning such a project?

When we went to market looking for a partner and a vendor solution, we were very clear on what we wanted. HP was are able to meet that.

King: Understand the method or the approach that you want to use PPM for. You cannot bring PPM and expect it to answer 80 percent of your issues. It can support and help direct resolution of issues, but you need to understand how you are expecting to do that. An example would be if you want to capture ideas from other business units or groups or the technology department on what they'd like to do to improve their application or improve product development, any area of the business, understand the life-cycle of how you want that to be managed. Don’t expect PPM to have preset examples for you.

Gardner: Very good. We’ve been discussing how Deloitte-Australia has benefited from leveraging SaaS as a model for delivery of project and portfolio management activities. I’d like to thank our guest, Ferne King, Director within the Investment and Growth Forum at Deloitte-Australia. Thanks so much.

King: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: And I’d also like to thank our listeners in joining us with this BriefingsDirect podcast, coming to you from a recent HP conference.

I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. Thanks again for listening, and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Transcript of a sponsored BriefingsDirect podcast, part of a series on application lifecycle management and HP ALM 11. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2011. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

• HP delivers applications appliance solutions that leverage converged infrastructure for virtualization, data management
• HP takes plunge on dual cloud bursting: public and-or private apps support comes of age
  
• HP rolls out EcoPOD modular data center, provides high-density converged infrastructure with extreme energy efficiency
• HP rolls out ALM 11 in Barcelona to expand managed automation for modern applications
• HP's new ALM 11 helps guide IT through shifting landscape of modern application development