Transcript of BriefingsDirect[TM] podcast with Dana Gardner, recorded Aug. 23, 2006.
Listen to the podcast here.
Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you’re listening to BriefingsDirect. Today, a podcast discussion on a mega convergence point, the intersection of advanced intelligent network services and applications as services, otherwise known as Services Oriented Architecture (SOA). And joining us to discuss this rather weighty topic is Bill Ruh, the vice president of Advanced Services at Cisco Systems. Welcome to the show, Bill.
Bill Ruh: Dana, thank you very much.
Gardner: Let me provide some more background on you and what you do at Cisco. You've been 20 years plus working in enterprise middleware and integration, and you are currently leading the Services Oriented Network Architecture (SONA), as well as the Application Oriented Networking (AON) services teams worldwide at Cisco. Previous to that, you were a senior vice president and CTO at Software AG, and you’ve worked at Mitre and IBM.
Furthermore, you’re an author, and in July of 2004 published a book called, "Enterprise Integration: the Essential Guide to Integrations and Solutions." Previous to that came, "Enterprise Application Integration, " as well as "Inside CORBA" and previous to that, "IIOP Complete. " So it sounds like you’ve got a pretty good handle on integration, Bill.
Ruh: I’ve seen a lot of the trends and a lot of the technologies come and go over the last 25 years to help us solve this problem.
Gardner: Based on some of the presentations I’ve seen you deliver, we are at this mega-tipping point -- not something that is just a continuum of what’s happened in the past, but something that seems quite different. This is largely due to SOA, virtualization, network convergence, intelligent network services, a higher level of standardization and open source. This all seems to imply a bit more than the typical roadmap, something that is quite new. I think you called it "integration for everyone." I wonder if you could start our discussion by sort of explaining what you mean by "integration for everyone."
Ruh: It certainly does feel like we’re about ready to enter and move up to another plateau in technology. In my experience it’s like client-server, or certainly like the Internet age. Then, we went up to a new plateau with the technology, and this has that same feel. I call it "integration for everyone" in that previously when we have talked about integration, it has been very much technical, the very technical integration of tying together systems.
But, when we start to look at where we’re going now -- in both the number of things and the kinds of things -- what we’re trying to do with those things in tying them together now is very different. In fact, we’ve got a movement from where we used to just have a few devices to where we have the Internet. We’re tying together RFID tags. We’re tying together sensors. So we’ve got a real change in the kinds of things that we’re tying together, where it’s not just technology things. It’s things that are going to be more business-oriented.
The idea of sensors, the idea of tags, the idea of "what is the device on the network" -- that is changing. We also see that the kind of things we want to do with integration is changing. It used to be that integration was really about taking information from one system and integrating it with information from another system. The kinds of integration we’re talking about now is also fundamentally changing, because what people want to do now is more about interactions than about production and transactions.
Now that I know that a temperature gauge in a refrigeration unit has gone off, well, what do I want to do with that? I want to not only sense it, but I want to respond to it. I want to tell somebody about it. This idea of collaboration means that I’m not just integrating applications in a technology sense. I’m integrating people and processes into this. So, when you look about "integration for everyone,” what we’re really talking about is not just technology integration. We’re now integrating all these devices and all these sensors and all these people and all these cell phones.
We’re now taking those integrations and its not just transferring information. We want to collaborate. We want to bring in this idea of communication. When I talk about "integration for everyone," it means that it’s integration for me. It’s integration for my son or daughter. It’s integration for everyone so that they get all the services and capabilities they need through whatever device or channel or whatever they’re interacting through. And that’s a fundamental re-definition of what integration is about.
Gardner: Okay, it sounds like this portends a great deal of opportunity, albeit with quite a bit of complexity. So, if I’m a CIO in a corporation and I’m trying to be strategic, work with the business side of the house in formulating how we’re going to take advantage of these trends and this new plateau of integration, how do we manage the complexity? What are some of the priorities that you see facing today’s CIO?
Ruh: I think you hit on the major challenge here. Software is always complex, and systems are complex, so it’s great for me to say, "Wow, we’re going to take all these sensors and plug them in, and you’re going to be told when some sensor goes off in your house or some sensor goes off in your business, and your business processes are going to be suddenly kicked off and you’re going to respond to things much quicker." But the fact is that we all know that trying to do that in real time is difficult.
The CIO is the one who is going to bear the brunt of why we can’t do this. The last time I remember, "Why can’t I do this," was in the PC era. You remember everybody had dumb terminals, and suddenly it was easy for people to go buy PCs through the finance department, etc. The CIOs suddenly had all this complexity and they had to tie it all together. Suddenly, they had networks showing up everywhere, all different flavors of networks, all different kinds of protocols -- and that became a nightmare to manage. Cisco was actually born out of that era in solving the problem of how to integrate and network together all these different PCs into different applications.
We’ve moved up that stack and the CIO is going to see that people are going to be building sensors and cell phones, and people are going to be saying in their businesses, "Why can’t you do this? I can go buy this capability." This will happen in the same way we saw the PC coming in the back door 20 years ago. Fortunately -- and maybe it’s really driven by this complexity -- the dialogue has turned to SOA.
SOA isn't really new. I was involved in Smalltalk and CORBA and the object-oriented movement back in the mid-1980s. A lot of these techniques and approaches have been talked about for a long time. What makes it different is that we’re now starting to get where the protocols are being made that allow standardization to occur. This idea of protocols is the same thing we saw with Internet protocol (IP). What we’re seeing is a movement up the stack to things that ride on top of IP that allow services to actually communicate, coordinate, and collaborate better -- in the same way it used to be hard to connect two things together and send data from one device to another, which is less of a problem today.
We’re going to see that protocols and services in the network are really going to allow us to communicate easier and reduce some of the complexity. So, the network’s going to tie into this movement of SOA. It’s going to provide services, infrastructure-level services, to take some of the complexity away from CIOs in terms of the infrastructure and allow them to focus on the business processes.
Gardner: We’ve discussed some of the technical integration issues, but it seems to me that in a typical enterprise today, there also is going to be the need for a cultural or organizational integration. For example, the application development and deployment folks are in one group or one culture. Network services and administration in another, and then voice telephony (VOIP) and communications in another. It seems to me that that won’t stand, that disintermediation between these different groups is not conducive to this larger integration proposition that we’re discussing. How do we bring application and network services together? How do Cisco’s AON, the Application Oriented Networking, and SOA relate, both technically and organizationally?
Ruh: You know, I think you hit the nail on the head. I don’t think this is necessarily being driven by Cisco. This is being driven by this larger services-oriented trend. When you look at it, we’ve organized our IT and our businesses that integrate with IT around the Internet model and the client-server model.
When you move to a service-oriented model and you start to move more intelligence in the network, certainly you’ve got the need for the networking person to become more cognizant of how they play and support the applications -- and it’s no longer a black box. We see the need for the networking folks to take on a larger responsibility in that intelligence, and provide services that may have been more traditionally built into our applications -- duplicated in many instances -- so people have multiple identity services, instead of one that logically probably fits in the network.
What we see is that the networking folks have to come up and deal with some of the complexity of the services being put in the network. At the same time, the applications folks within an IT organization have to think of the network not as plumbing. They can't just say: "I’ve opened up a socket," or "I open up some communication mechanism and the network takes care of getting the bits from here to there." They have to realize that there are services inside the network. We’re going to see that the organizational dynamics that you suggest are going to change because of that.
I’d add one other thing. As we get to more services or other organizational dynamics, we’re going to see that the end users are going to want the tools that they have on their desktops to allow them to quickly and easily utilize those services in the network as well as on our servers, so that they can apply them and connect them into their desktop applications. We see this in the case of Google, which has done mash ups and other things out there.
It’s not just the networking administrator or the networking person. It’s not just the applications person. The end user is going to start taking advantage of services and that changes the dynamics entirely. So, we’re going to see a real change in the dynamics between these organizations. And that’s why the network is so important. It’s the one thing that connects them all -- and those services have to be there to reduce that complexity.
Gardner: Another trend that’s afoot today that we haven’t mentioned, but has an impact, is the social networking phenomena, characterized often as Web 2.0, where we're seeing communities and collaboration and particularly interactivity. This back-and-forth nature of a discussion, of sharing of knowledge, is growing prominent, not only in blogging, but more mainstream in enterprises and in how people do business. Given that interactivity is a buzzword, and I don’t think just a short-term one, how does the network play in a modern, advanced sense in supporting interactivity solutions?
Ruh: Within Cisco, we talk about unified communications -- all the different mechanisms that people use to communicate and collaborate, and that communication is certainly changing. You just outlined that. We go from Voice-over-IP (VOIP), to instant messaging, to collaborative applications, sharing documents, and then we get into blogging.
This whole idea of communication is fundamentally being re-written overnight. Unified communications is going to be the focus for these next-generation applications that are going to support that environment. When you really look at the vision for where unified communications will go in the next five years, it includes the idea: "Why can't I take my blogs, and why can’t I take something like Google Earth and then plot where the blogs are?" Maybe I want to look at blogs that are from a certain part of the world, or that talk about a certain part of the world.
Communication is fundamentally changing to be IP-based. So, the network has provided services to allow those individuals to integrate with everybody. If I’m on a blog and I want to talk to someone and I want to collaborate with someone, I can bring up my collaboration tools. I can bring up my VOIP capability -- all of these things that are integrated. Those services allow me to take all of the services like Google Earth and start to use those tools as a part of the collaboration.
The idea that services can get integrated to the communications is important, and the network becomes the focal point for the services that support that infrastructure, as well as IP being the basis for all these different tools working together.
Gardner: It sounds like what we’re gaining here is the opportunity to not just view communications, applications, and data as separate, but that we need to pull together with our own brains -- with our wet-ware. How do we take this intelligent information network and manage it? It sounds like we have this opportunity, but I think people are still stuck thinking about these things as separate and unrelated.
Ruh: That’s obviously going to take some time, in the same way the Internet took time. I remember in 1994 and 1995 putting up Web sites. At the time I was with the Mitre Corp., and we did a lot of early work there. A lot of folks looked at this and asked, "What use was it?" and, "Who is going to manage it?"
Between 1994 or 1995 and 2000, organizations suddenly had a change, and now they have Web administrators and Web servers and everything else coming in. The organization had to morph to support that, so there’s always this chicken-and-egg relationship. What do you do first?
The important thing is that you don't decide to put the organization in place and then the technology. What happens is that the business begins to be driven by some of these external forces. So, external forces -- sensors, unified communications, and moving to VOIP -- and all these IP services -- are starting to come together, and they’re coming into the organization. With the PC, the user said, “Well, I’ve got this spreadsheet, and this is how I want to interact with things.” People start to focus on what the application is.
"If I can go home and do all the things I’m doing at home, well, when I go to work, I want to have exactly the same thing." That’s the thinking that drove the PC. That’s what drove the Internet, and that’s what’s going to drive this whole era. People can do this at home, and they’re going to say, "Well, why can’t I do that at work, and why can’t I have that same capability?" And they start bringing it in the back door. What happens then, of course, is that the IT world has to respond to that.
What we’ll see is that organizations are going to have to decide whether they want to get a little ahead of the power curve here. They know this is all happening, and that means they have to look at their network, look at their systems and say, "I’m going to do services-oriented here. I’m going to do SOA, and I’m going to do services-oriented infrastructure. Let me figure out a few of the core elements I need to put in. Security is a network service. That’s great, and I’ve got to put that in there. I’ve got to start looking at what kind of services go where."
You get a few core elements in and from that what is going to happen is that IT organizations are going to learn what they need to do to really fit into this wave or this trend. Number two, is that they are going to be viewed as being responsive to the business side of things. This is the approach that people have to look at. "What are some of these core services that I can put in the network? What are some of the core services that I’ve got within my servers and how can take advantage of this trend and support what is certainly going to be a wave that is going to hit?"
Gardner: We’ve had quite a few acronyms in our discussion, and we could probably come up with a couple of hundred more. Help me out with Services Oriented Network Architecture (SONA). I’ve got a pretty good handle on SOA, and I’ve got a pretty good handle on AON, but I’m a little bit less clear on SONA. What do you all mean by that?
Ruh: SONA is a Cisco-defined architecture. We recognize that we have a very diverse product set, and those products fit together. So part of SONA is to show how all of our products that we bring to market fit together into an overall network. And rather than the network as just the transport, it's the network as a platform.
With that you can understand how unified communications fits with mobility, data center, networking, and security. How does all this fit on top of your network infrastructure and work together? One piece of this is to show how the entirety of what we’re doing in terms of our products fits together as a single, integrated platform.
In addition, what SONA is about is for us to show how these are not only just products with features and functions, but that they provide specific services in the network -- identity services, VPN services, presence services from mobility -- so that the applications people can begin to understand it. If they're going to use a presence service within the SONA architecture, when the networking people provide those mobility services, and there is a presence service in there, they can take advantage of that presence service for their application.
SONA is about how the entire Cisco product line fits together. It’s also about how those products then provide services and how those services fit with the application. Finally, it really lays out the vision for how we’re taking our portfolio going forward and how these things are going to continue to evolve, how they’re going to continue to work together. As an architecture, we show how we can create an infrastructure that can improve your overall SOA investment.
As you invest in SOA, the infrastructure through SONA is there to allow you to scale. How are you going to do bandwidth and manage bandwidth and quality of service? How are you going to provide a converged network? How are security and mobility going to fit in? Which standards and protocols are going to be used? How do you get the ability to virtualize your storage and your compute environments and other devices? SONA really is an architecture, and it’s a way for the customer to see how the network plays in their overall service-oriented architecture and what services we believe really belong in the network going forward.
Gardner: Help me understand, if I put myself in the role of the developer. Traditionally as a developer I probably haven’t been too concerned with the network and I probably feel that’s up to the operations people to deal with. I’m focused on the logic, on the presentation, on the access and integration. But it sounds to me as a developer that I may have a palette of different objects and services to choose from as I’m crafting my application. And increasingly I’m going to have more on that palette in the form of network services.
Is that the way I should be thinking as a developer -- that I should be looking toward network services as part of my typical library of resources when I’m putting together an application? Or is there some other intercept where these network services as you described them will come into play with applications?
Ruh: We don’t want developers to look and say, "Oh, I’m programming the network." Obviously that’s not the intent here. In fact, to them, these services should just exist and be available to them as part of their overall palette, as you described.
The issue that we’re trying to educate people on is that some of these services do belong in the network. From a developer’s perspective today they may think about identity services or mobility services. They need to be aware that decisions need to be made about it. Maybe this ought to be in the network, and they need to work with networking folks and architecture folks. If we need these as common services, hopefully they’ll also say, "Yeah, we know that they should be in the network."
And this has happened before. VPN used to be in application code -- and it has migrated down to the network. Multi-cast is another great example: Programmers used to build multi-cast and now they know it’s in the network, and they expect it to be there. Firewalls used to be at the application layer. It's the same with quality of service, replication, back-up, and encryption -- all these things. We’re really continuing down the path of educating developers that these services belong in the network.
From a programmer’s standpoint, it either just happens, which is the best case, or they can configure it as a service. The way we’re moving is to open up and provide some of our functionality to services that a system’s architect or an application person can take advantage of as they build out their applications.
Gardner: Perhaps I had it a little bit backward. Instead of my seeing more items on my palette, perhaps I should expect to see fewer, as components that have perhaps traditionally been part of an application or middleware layer, migrate to the network layer. Then, I really don’t have to worry about them, and so perhaps the reuse and integration of these services into a platform reduces my options as a developer. Do you think that’s right?
Ruh: I think it's absolutely right, and I think you’ve got the point there, which is: Should every application implement virus detection and virus management? No. Should it be implemented for them? Yes. Should there be some ability for the applications to control other set policies? Those are things that should happen, but the fact is that there are a lot of things that are infrastructure that should just happen, where programmers don’t have to worry about them as they do today.
Gardner: In wrapping up, why don’t we try to get into some more of the reality side of this in terms of implementation? If I’m a CIO, or if I’m a developer, or architect beginning to see the logic of bringing services from middleware and from a siloed basis onto a more ubiquitous platform for reuse, how do I get started, where do I put the pencil on the paper first to start in this direction?
Ruh: What we’ve been doing in working with customers down this path is, and -- as strange as this is going to sound -- it really does start with a strategy and roadmap. The IT organization really needs to make sure that they have their strategy for their IT environment laid out, as well as the kind of roadmap they have to get there. That's what allows the dialogue to take place at the next level.
What you don’t want to do is to say, "Okay, I need services. Let me go buy services, put them in;" to do the Field of Dreams thing ... and they will come. In the past, as we’ve learned from object oriented, building common services, and having the Field of Dreams approach doesn’t work.
What does work is if you’ve got your strategy and your roadmap for your IT organization, such as where your investments are going to be made, what applications you’re going to be building. The best strategy is to come in and say, "Okay what is the best approach -- architectural approach -- to get there?" Now you can begin to integrate with the architectural group to say, "We know that we want to start to put in place certain B-to-B capabilities or certain other applications."
Maybe the best place to start is with identity services within the network or maybe the best place to start is with mobility services in the network. Or maybe really, I want to improve the data center. If I take a retail operation, if my strategy and roadmap is really that, I’m going to invest in the store operations in the stores. I may really focus on identity management and wireless services in the network. Maybe I’m going to move to wireless POS (point of sales).
Maybe I’m going to do e-learning. Maybe I’m just going to just change the nature of the store. If I've already invested in the stores, what I really want to do is I want to save money in my back-ends and I want to improve my data center operations. Then, it may be that putting in storage networking services, putting in a compute services in the network to virtualized storage and servers, maybe those are much better approaches.
The fact is you want to tie bringing in new services to the investments you plan to make that will be tied to the business problems that are out there. Then, very naturally, over the course of three years, as you execute that strategy and roadmap, you end up with these services being built in and being paid for as a part of that natural investment. Where we have been coming in, interestingly enough, is we are now getting involved with those strategies and roadmaps by doing a lot of workshops and planning with them, and then bringing in what SONA can provide in tying down to a real ROI analysis. Then, you get into the architecture and the technology and how it fits in. And, the part everybody really loves-- you finally get down to buying specific products that implement that capability.
Gardner: So I guess two takeaways from that would be: The good news is that I can do this incrementally; that I don’t have to build it all and then throw a switch one day. It can start on a crawl-walk-run basis. But, in order to make that plausible, there also has to be a top-down mandate for these cultural silos. And all of these different parts need to act in some concert toward an iterative build-out and adoption. There has to be some word from on high that this is our strategy, this is the roadmap, and this is what we’re going to do. Does that sound about right?
Ruh: That sounds about right, and it’s getting people to realize that this can be done incrementally. It makes the most sense to have the discussion around a business problem that you’re going to invest in anyway. And then very naturally the network folks, the app folks, and the architecture folks are sitting around the table and having the right discussions -- which is: which services really belong in the network, which services are going to give us the biggest bang for the buck, and which services quite naturally belong in the other parts of the IT infrastructure? So, it really starts the dialogue down the right path.
Gardner: Well, thanks very much. We’ve been discussing mega-trends and convergence, network services, application services, and SOA. Joining us has been Bill Ruh, the vice president of Advanced Services at Cisco Systems. This is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions for BriefingsDirect. Thanks for joining us.
Ruh: Thanks a lot.
Listen to the podcast here.
Transcript of Dana Gardner’s BriefingsDirect podcast on network services and SOA convergence. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2006. All rights reserved.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Full Transcript of Dana Gardner's BriefingsDirect Podcast on IT Shared Services
Transcript of BriefingsDirect[TM] podcast with Dana Gardner, recorded July 28, 2006. Podcast sponsor: Hewlett-Packard.
Listen to the podcast here.
Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions and you’re listening to a sponsored podcast, BriefingsDirect. Today a discussion about IT shared services. This is a trend that has cropped up in back-office applications and processes over the last few years and is now being increasingly used for IT productivity, within the IT departments at large organizations.
Joining us to discuss this topic, and dive deeply into its implications for such other trends as services oriented architecture (SOA), are two executives from Hewlett-Packard (HP). Joining us are Peg Ofstead, the worldwide solution lead for HP’s IT Shared Services and IT Consolidation Services unit within HP Consulting and Integration. Welcome to the show, Peg.
Peg Ofstead: Hi, thank you.
Gardner: Also, joining us is Ewald Comhaire. Ewald is the director of the global practice for Next Generation Infrastructure and Technology at HP. Welcome, Ewald.
Ewald Comhaire: Hello.
Gardner: Well, let’s dig right into this subject. Because it’s a bit esoteric for those who are from a variety of backgrounds. Let’s define IT shared services and perhaps also offer a brief history of how this came to be applied generally -- and then perhaps more specifically -- to information technology (IT). Why don’t we start with you, Peg?
Ofstead: Great, thank you. Shared services have been around for 15 to 20 years, but they really were more popular with back-office functions like HR and finance. Some companies also called their mainframe data centers shared services over the years. But now that there’s really a resurgence of shared services, there is also more of a centralization of IT -- in many cases going in to try and save money. One of the problems we see is that often companies have centralized their IT, and they are calling it shared services, but they haven’t moved to what’s traditionally a shared-services model where IT is acting like a supplier to the line of business with much more flexible models.
Gardner: So it’s not just centralizing from a decentralized perspective. It’s really changing the role of IT from responsive to perhaps filling the role of a supplier and service-provider to the larger organization.
Ofstead: Absolutely, the whole idea is that centralization can save money and that’s why a lot of people are doing it. It also provides some standardization and other benefits. It takes control away from the line of business, and that typically is the rub. That’s where the line of business pushes back about centralization. Because when they have their own IT, they obviously can ask it to do whatever they want when they want.
Once you centralize, if you are merely managing to an annual cost budget, as a cost-center you’ll lose a lot of flexibility and responsiveness. The shared services model is trying to get the benefits of centralization, yet using a number of techniques that give a measure of control back to the line of business. If they act as a supplier, where they charge based on usage or subscription for services, they are much more flexible in terms of being able to respond to changes that the business needs.
Gardner: I can testify -- from personal experience at the number of companies that I have worked at over the last 10 or 15 years -- that relating to and getting satisfaction from IT can be a difficult process. Sometimes you get the run-around. Sometimes you get a nameless help desk; sometimes if you are in an application development mode you get put in a line that’s long and takes months for seemingly easy things to get done.
That fosters the notion that people won’t even go to IT, and start doing these sorts of things on their own -- almost on a loose cannon basis, department by department -- all of which is highly inefficient and expensive. How big a problem is the issue about companies getting satisfaction from their IT departments? And how much progress do you think IT shared services is going to bring to this issue?
Ofstead: I think you've put your finger on a major problem especially as IT is centralized. The key here is really two things: if IT is managing to an annual budget that they are handed, and that budget keeps getting cut every year (which has been the case for the past five years or so in many organizations), then basically all the requests from the lines of business get prioritized.
IT looks at their budget, they fund the items at the top of the list and everything else isn’t done. That’s one major problem. So, moving away from a cost-center model addresses that, because basically it comes down to the fact that if the line of business wants something, and if they can pay for it, IT can do it. That becomes a significant change.
The other key is really a cultural change, and a lot of people get caught up in looking at the technology aspects of shared services. Quite frankly it’s all these other things that are major transformations that need to be made in terms of governance, the operating model, culture, and staff. For example, in a shared-services environment the whole thing is about service, customer service. It’s a much more of a focus on treating the line of business as if it were a real customer, and customer satisfaction, as you know, is really, really important. Ewald, Do you have something to add?
Comhaire: A couple of things, but I think you already hit on them more or less. One, we see still quite a few surveys that show that IT has some issues with showing its value to the business. That's typically a clear sign. We also still see companies that choose to outsource their IT, which also means that they are not at the right level of maturity or cost effectiveness that the business would like. And, finally there are also complaints on the transparency of the costs. Why does IT charge me this amount of money and what does that money give me as a value, are still often questions. IT shared services provides a framework or a model to help answer these questions in a better way.
Ofstead: Those were wonderful points. The other thing about transparency is on service levels, which goes somewhat to Dana’s point that if you have specific service levels that you’ve agreed upon with the lines of business, you can measure those. You can be transparent about how well you’re meeting those service levels -- whether they are about help desk responsiveness or availability or response time -- all those things help build trust and show the value of IT.
Gardner: Clearly there are some imperatives internally for how IT can improve and project itself as more of a solutions provider, making customers satisfied internally, rather than being viewed as a bureaucratic cost center. What about external trends? Is there anything going on in the business world vis-à-vis globalization or vis-à-vis the technology itself that makes this a particularly auspicious time to begin embarking on IT shared services? Ewald, why don’t you take this one?
Comhaire: First of all, the service providers -- and HP is a good example of this – are modularizing our services offerings. For example, in the past we used to offer much more all-or-nothing outsourcing. Today, it's a very modular portfolio of what we call "managed services" offerings to our customers. This also makes it obvious that the customers have a lot of choice points, whether they want to run a service inside of their own company or eventually acquire it from the larger market. That’s definitely a trend that forces customers to modularize their offerings and make them more comparative to what the industry can offer.
Gardner: Do you mean that there’s more of an opportunity now for a hybrid approach, in which you can have some services provided internally, some provided externally, some as a service, or some as simply an off-premises technology infrastructure benefit? Do we have a spectrum of choices now in order to approach this problem flexibly?
Comhaire: Exactly, and it’s also easier for the businesses to compare, because in the past it was all-or-nothing. You would outsource all of IT. Today, for example, they can look selectively at one service and see that there’s a capability outside.
Let me give you a practical example. Let’s say in the oil and gas businesses they need to do bid on an oil field. In order to get the price as close as possible to the value of that oil field they need to a reservoir modeling. In the past, obviously they would need to buy all the equipment and all the software, bring it inside their own house, run the whole model and when the money is used up, then the modeling is basically done. Today, they can look at different offerings on the market -- and HP offers some of these -- where they can do the modeling on a per-week or per-day basis. They don’t need to own the equipment and they don’t need to pay for the software for the whole year. They can just rent it for a smaller period of time. So, there are a lot of choices. And as you have choice, you can compare. This drives the modularization of the services offering into shared, modular-type services.
Gardner: Are there any other global or mega trends that are underpinning the value and momentum toward IT shared services?
Ofstead: I think that the cost issues of the past years have forced a lot of companies to look at their models. They've been in a situation where lines of business would have a new application and they would buy servers dedicated to development and testing of that application, and then another set of servers for production. That tended to be a very constrained and ineffective approach. Utilization tended to be low on a lot of those servers. So, with new virtualization capabilities, companies are looking at models where servers are shared and virtualized. The only problem is: What does that do with the model where the line of business is buying the servers for specific application? They are at a point where in order to take advantage of technology, they have to look at different governance model anyway. I think that has led a lot of them to explore these kinds of alternatives.
Comhaire: I would just like to add one more -- the agility angle. Now that we're seeing business up-tick a little bit in the market, the need for greater agility is coming up again. We have been able to show both internally and externally that shared services provides a very agile environment in which the time-to-service is much shorter in a shared services environment.
Gardner: If you have a variety of services from a variety of sources, you can do a cost-benefit analysis on how to best go about them but also you can move them in and out with some speed and flexibility. Peg, you have mentioned governance. Are there any regulatory imperatives -- perhaps Sarbanes-Oxley -- that make shared services something to consider?
Comhaire: There are two ways to look at it. First, they could be an inhibitor. We often see that in the pharmaceuticals industry where they say, "Well, our environment is heavily regulated, so we cannot touch IT. It can never be shared."
Sometimes that is an excuse; other times, there is some validity in it. But often, there not a willingness to go through some of the procedures again, because then they need to re-document some of the procedures to meet regulations. On the other hand, if you take a look at Sarbanes-Oxley, it’s sometimes easier in a shared services environment because actually at the end of the day you have fewer environments. They are more shared and standardized -- and fewer things to therefore make Sarbanes Oxley-compliant at the end of the day. It saves you time and effort, and you can be compliant better. I can give an example: Often you can have some shared services that support some of the financial applications that need to produce Sarbanes-compliant reports. If they’re running on shared services most often, they have a better disaster recovery mechanism behind it, and thus helps you get more quickly compliant with Sarbanes-Oxley regulations.
Gardner: It seems to me that going to a shared services approach also provides the so-called "one-throat-to-choke" benefit. [Under shared services] there is a hierarchy within the IT organization, so you can go and get action [from the top]. The leadership can take the role of triage and prioritization -- and therefore provide satisfaction -- on a high-priority issue … more quickly.
Comhaire: Yeah! And with the clear accountability that shared services offers, this is adding to the point you just made.
Gardner: Okay. So, we’ve looked at some of the issues internally, we’ve looked at some of the major trends that are affecting this. What’s the pay off? How do we get people to make the plunge and say, “Wow! This is going to be disruptive; this is going to cause me to almost have to do a complete audit. And, you know what, I can’t transform what I don’t know.” It’s going to take quite a bit of activity, energy, and probably some cost up-front in order to take on this IT shared services benefits issue. What’s the pay off? What are the incentives that break through inertia against such change?
Ofstead: Well, there’s definitely cost savings. However lots of companies may say that they could make lots of those cost savings through mere centralization -- and that's the question that one constantly has to come back to.
But, the other side is, as Ewald mentioned before, as CIOs struggle to prove the value that IT has for the business, what value do they add other than being a back-office function? It’s proven through surveys that CIOs who have moved to a real shared-services model, where they are treating the line of business as a customer, are moving away from this cost-centric model. They are seen as adding significantly more value to the business. So, that’s a huge win for IT and it removes CIOs from being in this situation of constantly having their budget squeezed and putting them more into a partnership with the business.
Comhaire: I would like to add three others to the ones Peg mentioned. I think she mentioned the value and cost, which are clearly there in almost all the cases. Agility we've already mentioned. We can prove that a lot of customers value that tremendously, as well as quality-of-service improvements, because shared services typically are managed as a true service with end-to-end service management and a service-level agreements. That's a clear benefit to the business users, and sometimes if it’s implemented, it also reduces risk through better security combinations with the service. For example, compliance to regulations or a business continuity element added to the shared services also helps to reduce the business risk in general.
Gardner: There are obviously some qualitative and quantitative ways of viewing this. One would certainly be the IT budget, going up or going down year to year. At the same time, there would be a qualitative view -- what’s the level of satisfaction and productivity from the perspective of the internal constituents? Are you familiar with any company that has undergone such a transformation and has been able to see its budget decreasing and, at the same time, seeing general satisfaction and productivity increasing? Are there some proof points that we can look to here?
Comhair: Unfortunately, I can't mention the name of the customer, but we have started a complete IT shared-services transformation with a customer in Europe. In fact, it was started more than three years ago -- and it's really important that it’s already that long, because the customer could measure the before- and the end-states, and obviously understand the budgetary differences. And, so we do have those numbers, which are pretty spectacular from an operational cost-saving perspective. In the meantime it has also been really good for the overall profitability of the company -- or at least that large unit of the company has done really well in the subsequent years. So, we can see the reflection, not just on the cost side, but also on the overall health of the business in question.
Gardner: You mentioned something important there and that was the operational cost. It’s my understanding that in many organizations it’s not the up-front investment in technology or even acquisition of skills, but it’s in the long-term operational cost -- making up somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of the total IT budget -- that is the major cost center and therefore the place to look for the best return on efficiency. Is that your understanding as well?
Ofstead: Yes, and the other really keen thing -- and Ewald has mentioned this before -- is that this allows people to spend less money keeping the lights on, as it were, in the operational costs, and spend more of their budget on innovation. So, IT can actually do more of the things that the lines of business want it to.
Gardner: So, even if the budget doesn’t go down, there is an opportunity to reduce the routine ongoing costs and then apply those funds to a new initiative that will offer even higher productivity benefits.
Ofstead: Right -- and higher value.
Gardner: Where does this work best first? Are there any particular types of company -- by culture, by organization, perhaps ones that are either more decentralized or centralized -- that work better than others? Are there particular verticals that this makes sense in? Where are you seeing the sweet-spot in the market for where IT shared services is accepted first and then has the biggest return?
Ofstead: Well, we're seeing broad-based interest across the industries. However, in terms of a broad transformation of all of IT to a shared-services model, I’d say that the financial services sector is particularly active in that approach, and also the public sector. However, other industries, such as manufacturing, seem to be very interested in implementing selected shared services.
Gardner: Is that because of low margins -- because they're in a tight and competitive environment?
Ofstead: That could a part of it. There’s a lot of change in financial services right now. The public sector obviously has a lot of pressure in terms of transforming itself to be able to provide information to the public, and there are other changes going on with manufacturing. I see them interested in implementing individual utilities, such as the shared infrastructure utility or shared database utility; Ewald, is that also what you are seeing?
Comhaire: Absolutely, I just would like to add the interest from the telecommunications and service-provider markets and what’s typically driving them. Traditionally, in a telco you had the network operations site, which was very much customer focused with an outside portfolio. Then you had the internal IT, and they were very different, because you had telco protocols and you had enterprise IT protocols and standards, all of which were different.
Today, there’s a significant convergence of these protocols. Mainly the enterprise IT protocols now become the telco ones with some additional flavors, and that means that those CIOs of the internal IT become now very active as well in adopting the more service provider-type of operations that their external colleagues were doing for a long time. So, we also see service-provider market telcos being very, very active in shared services.
Gardner: Let me move to the conversation a little bit to what I mentioned at the outset, the interesting intersection of IT shared services and services oriented architecture, or SOA. It seems to me that this is something that has a potential to be a whole greater than the sum of its parts -- that IT shared services is approaching a productivity issue set from one perspective, and then SOA enters from a more technological perspective. Can you perhaps delve in a little bit and help me understand the harmonious relationship between IT shared services and SOA -- and what this potentially means in terms of the magnitude of the transformation potential?
Comhaire: I would be happy to take this first, and, Peg, if you want to add something, go ahead. First of all, there are a lot of commonalities, but there are also clear differences. IT shared services is more of an operating model, a concept of how IT can provide services to the business. SOA is actually more an architectural approach and there are clear differences from that perspective.
But, there are also many things in common. For example, what’s definitely in common with SOA is a model of a consumer and a producer of a certain service. Obviously, the same applies to shared services where the service in this case is an IT-type service -- not an application but an IT-type service. That’s one place in common. The other area that’s in common and that is maybe a little bit more unique for our approach to shared services is that we have architected a typical IT shared services portfolio that the IT organization would offer to the business using SOA principles.
What does that mean? That means that services can be reused together, or architected in such a way that one shared service can be applied next to another -- to solve a bigger problem. That is something that not necessarily IT shared services mandates as a concept but it is something that, if you do a clever combination of both IT shared services and SOA you can get a lot of business value.
And the third location is as we implement individual shared services we also try to expose that functionality under a web services format, which means that again the service would be reusable at a higher level in a transparent way, which is another SOA concept applied to shared services.
Gardner: So, do you view this that SOA provides a new set of tools that can enable IT shared services? And then provides this larger benefit from productivity and agility? Is that how you see it?
Comhaire: Yes, absolutely. SOA is an enabling concept and enabling architecture for shared services, and if you apply those concepts of SOA to IT shared services you can get a lot of additional benefit over and above what the normal shared services model already would offer to you.
Gardner: Is it too much to ask of any organization to try to do these both at the same time? It seems that if you could do them simultaneously there would be a huge payoff, but it also sounds almost daunting.
Comhaire: That is absolutely true, and that’s why we are definitely helping the customer by doing some of that work for them. For example, we have our own internal templates -- starting points -- of an IT shared services catalog, and the way we architected those services is already SOA-compliant. So, in a way it may be too much to ask of a customer who doesn’t do this as a business all the time. Typically those customer do this once, but for us as a provider of IT shared services it’s kind of a must-do, and we need to spend just a little bit more time as we architect and build these shared services to make sure they are SOA-compliant.
Gardner: And, Peg, it seems to me that if you were to take two similar organizations -- perhaps operating in similar markets, of similar size, with similar resources -- and one takes the plunge and does SOA and IT shared services in some combination over a period of time -- and the other doesn’t. Well, the company that does would have a huge competitive advantage and a productivity advantage. Is that grasping at straws?
Ofstead: No, absolutely not. Again, the financial services market is very competitive at the moment and I think that’s one reason we’re seeing so much motion in that area. Obviously, we've talked about a cost advantage and an agility advantage, and the combination of two really could make a huge difference for a company.
Gardner: Do you have anything else to offer in terms of how companies should conceptualize of SOA and IT shared services as sort of top-down? That is, would the “C”-class executive work down from the CIO with an IT shared-services mandate? And is SOA perhaps more organic and needs to happen down in the developer ranks and really change the way in which the development takes place? Can we simplify it to that level, that one is sort of bottom-up and the other top-down?
Ofstead: Well, the concepts are extremely synergistic, and I think you want to do a good job of explaining that. But, both transformations are not small. There is a lot involved and so an organization would really need a strong commitment from the top to embark on these. They would need to understand that the full implementation probably takes a number of years.
So, a clear road map with specific projects and short-term demonstrable results, I think, is important. Having a clear vision of where you’ll be after nine to 12 months, where you’ll be after the second year or the third year, and understanding that this is not a small change that you are embarking on – these are key things for either one of these transformations.
Comhaire: But, just to add to what Peg already said, in our approach -- and that’s actually true for SOA as well -- we do offer top-down and bottom-up approaches. For example, a bottom-up approach in shared services would be when we help customers build out just one shared service. And, we try to do it well, guide them through the whole concept of what it takes to build out a shared service that reduces the scope to one.
In fact, you can do this for SOA as well. You can apply it to one application or a small set of applications that you redesign using SOA concepts. At the same time, you can have the strategic approach top-down to say, "I have decided to move to a shared services model,” or “I’m going to transform my whole application portfolio over the period of time to all SOA-compliant applications." For both, you can walk this continuum from totally strategic to a more tactical, and play-it-small, try-it-first, and then see which works and extend it to the more strategic direction.
Gardner: Well that brings up an interesting question. What do you see happening in the field? How do people do this crawl, walk, run approach? What do you recommend and perhaps what is HP doing in terms of putting some structure around that process?
Ofstead: Well, as Ewald said, we have customers who prefer a more broad-based transformation, and we have other customers who prefer to implement selected shared-service utilities one at a time. We have a methodology and process around both.
We’re helping customers with both of those approaches. Our methodologies are consistent. So, if you start, for example, from the bottom-up, as Ewald was saying, implementing one or more selected shared service utilities -- for example assured infrastructure utility or a shared database utility -- you can ultimately go through the transformation. But that’s a decision the organization will make, based on benefits they saw of implementing just selected utility.
On the other hand, for companies that have really looked at shared services carefully and have decided to take the plunge and do a broad-based strategic transformation, we have a reference architecture and the tools and methodology to help them with that process. We have a clear vision of exactly what’s needed, and we can help them assess where they are today, set their goal of how much of shared services they want to implement, in terms of the level of maturity they aspire to, and give them a clear road map on how to get there.
Gardner: Are there any lessons from other folks that have undertaken this sort of activity in terms of how to get started and not necessarily implement the shared services, but how to get yourself ready to begin implementing? Are there any first steps in preparation that you‘ve seen?
Ofstead: In working with our clients and also at the Shared Services Conference that was held in the U.S. this year, I heard all of the people who have embarked on this road say that it’s very important to have an external partner to help guide you through this -- a change agent. That was consistent among all the presentations: You need someone to help guide you through this kind of a change. Obviously, a key thing is helping people understand why you’re making the change, and that’s your people within the IT organization as well as in the lines of business.
Comhaire: I think you said something that’s really valid: It’s a people, process, technology change. So, that’s definitely a key. Depending on which level we talk to, some of our customers see this just as a technology problem, "How do we move multiple workloads on a shared platform?"
They forget about the fact there is a whole impact on process and, as Peg mentioned, a management of change on the people, on the staffing side that they need to take into account to guarantee success. That’s a lesson we have definitely learned: We have to make sure that we correctly value the interdependencies between the people, the process, and the technology. And even if you get those three right, at the end of the day it’s also about designing and building your services. Does your service meet the requirements of your business consumers? Is it well aligned with where your company wants to go? So, there are some additional elements besides just people, process, and technology that are also key elements for doing it right.
Ofstead: And long-term, one of the key things is that customers need to start is to begin benchmarking themselves. That means really comparing the cost of their service and the quality of their service to what’s available from external service providers. This means actually implementing continuous process improvements around their shared services. So, it’s very important that people understand all these things and they not just view the shared-pool of technology that they are using.
Gardner: Well, we are almost out of time. I think this has been a fascinating discussion. Let’s look to the future briefly. What are the implications for IT shared services, particularly in concert with SOA? It seems to me that we have an opportunity for a marketplace effect on a number of different levels. IT organizations that have this agility can shop around, can swap sourcing options in and out, based on the performance and payoff. And then, in a sense this sets companies and enterprises up for an even larger set of productivity goals, when they can bring competition in marketplace forces into IT -- how they source it, how they deploy it themselves internally, and also in providing a much more market-oriented approach to the internal customer. And, as we mentioned the public sector -- government for example -- how they actually provide services to their constituencies, or voters, or taxpayers. Can you elaborate a little bit on what is the potential, the future road map is for all of this?
Ofstead: I think for the CIO who does this properly and just doesn’t centralize, but actually changes the model from a cost-centric model to a service-provider model, it’s what makes them an entrepreneur within their organization.
Instead of being constrained by their annual budget, they’re able to really work as a partner with the line of business. It certainly puts them in a position where they can help be an innovator with the line of business, which is huge. There’s the cost savings we talked about, and the agility.
For companies that do this properly not only will the IT organization be seen as very successful, but the organization as a whole will too. They would be much more competitive, much more successful. It could make a tremendous difference in the success of a corporation. Ewald?
Comhaire: Yes, and to add to some of the things you’ve already mentioned, I think it will also bring IT closer to the business; because within IT you start to think like a business. “What do I offer? How do I price, not just on what costs I have [but on] planning for my demand and my supply?”
So, a whole series of notions that typically only business units within a company would think about -- now have IT thinking in same terms as the business. This typically will bring them much closer together because they start talking the same language, and so on.
And another aspect I think for the future is that IT organizations will become a little bit more like service brokers. I think you described this really well. That means they have to in-source, outsource, and combine these things much more dynamically than today -- and I think that will change the IT landscape over the next years.
Ofstead: To build on that, one kind of hidden benefit that a CIO would have is really true visibility into his cost, and an organization that’s much more service-centric than technology-centric.
Today, many IT organizations are organized around technology. They may know what technologies cost. They may know what that they spend on servers every year, for example -- they may not even know that. But they certainly don’t know what it costs to provide a service. For example, what does it cost for each SAP transaction?
Once they move to this new model, there’s lot of benefits in terms of knowing what their true costs are, knowing the quality of their services, really understanding that well, and being able to really make very sound business decisions about what they in-source and what they either outsource or out-task.
Gardner: Well great. Thanks very much. I think we need to wrap this up. It’s been a discussion about IT shared services, how it’s developing as a productivity and agility benefit and as a business alignment and transformation benefit. It really does encompass a lot in the modern corporation and enterprise.
Joining us for this discussion, have been two Hewlett-Packard executives: Peg Ofstead, the worldwide solution lead for HP’s IT Shared Services and IT Consulting Services organization, as well as Ewald Comhaire, the director of the global practice for Next Generation Infrastructure and Technology within HP services. Thank you very much both for joining us.
Listen to the podcast here.
Podcast sponsor: Hewlett-Packard.
Transcript of Dana Gardner’s BriefingsDirect podcast on IT shared services. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2006. All rights reserved.
Listen to the podcast here.
Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions and you’re listening to a sponsored podcast, BriefingsDirect. Today a discussion about IT shared services. This is a trend that has cropped up in back-office applications and processes over the last few years and is now being increasingly used for IT productivity, within the IT departments at large organizations.
Joining us to discuss this topic, and dive deeply into its implications for such other trends as services oriented architecture (SOA), are two executives from Hewlett-Packard (HP). Joining us are Peg Ofstead, the worldwide solution lead for HP’s IT Shared Services and IT Consolidation Services unit within HP Consulting and Integration. Welcome to the show, Peg.
Peg Ofstead: Hi, thank you.
Gardner: Also, joining us is Ewald Comhaire. Ewald is the director of the global practice for Next Generation Infrastructure and Technology at HP. Welcome, Ewald.
Ewald Comhaire: Hello.
Gardner: Well, let’s dig right into this subject. Because it’s a bit esoteric for those who are from a variety of backgrounds. Let’s define IT shared services and perhaps also offer a brief history of how this came to be applied generally -- and then perhaps more specifically -- to information technology (IT). Why don’t we start with you, Peg?
Ofstead: Great, thank you. Shared services have been around for 15 to 20 years, but they really were more popular with back-office functions like HR and finance. Some companies also called their mainframe data centers shared services over the years. But now that there’s really a resurgence of shared services, there is also more of a centralization of IT -- in many cases going in to try and save money. One of the problems we see is that often companies have centralized their IT, and they are calling it shared services, but they haven’t moved to what’s traditionally a shared-services model where IT is acting like a supplier to the line of business with much more flexible models.
Gardner: So it’s not just centralizing from a decentralized perspective. It’s really changing the role of IT from responsive to perhaps filling the role of a supplier and service-provider to the larger organization.
Ofstead: Absolutely, the whole idea is that centralization can save money and that’s why a lot of people are doing it. It also provides some standardization and other benefits. It takes control away from the line of business, and that typically is the rub. That’s where the line of business pushes back about centralization. Because when they have their own IT, they obviously can ask it to do whatever they want when they want.
Once you centralize, if you are merely managing to an annual cost budget, as a cost-center you’ll lose a lot of flexibility and responsiveness. The shared services model is trying to get the benefits of centralization, yet using a number of techniques that give a measure of control back to the line of business. If they act as a supplier, where they charge based on usage or subscription for services, they are much more flexible in terms of being able to respond to changes that the business needs.
Gardner: I can testify -- from personal experience at the number of companies that I have worked at over the last 10 or 15 years -- that relating to and getting satisfaction from IT can be a difficult process. Sometimes you get the run-around. Sometimes you get a nameless help desk; sometimes if you are in an application development mode you get put in a line that’s long and takes months for seemingly easy things to get done.
That fosters the notion that people won’t even go to IT, and start doing these sorts of things on their own -- almost on a loose cannon basis, department by department -- all of which is highly inefficient and expensive. How big a problem is the issue about companies getting satisfaction from their IT departments? And how much progress do you think IT shared services is going to bring to this issue?
Ofstead: I think you've put your finger on a major problem especially as IT is centralized. The key here is really two things: if IT is managing to an annual budget that they are handed, and that budget keeps getting cut every year (which has been the case for the past five years or so in many organizations), then basically all the requests from the lines of business get prioritized.
IT looks at their budget, they fund the items at the top of the list and everything else isn’t done. That’s one major problem. So, moving away from a cost-center model addresses that, because basically it comes down to the fact that if the line of business wants something, and if they can pay for it, IT can do it. That becomes a significant change.
The other key is really a cultural change, and a lot of people get caught up in looking at the technology aspects of shared services. Quite frankly it’s all these other things that are major transformations that need to be made in terms of governance, the operating model, culture, and staff. For example, in a shared-services environment the whole thing is about service, customer service. It’s a much more of a focus on treating the line of business as if it were a real customer, and customer satisfaction, as you know, is really, really important. Ewald, Do you have something to add?
Comhaire: A couple of things, but I think you already hit on them more or less. One, we see still quite a few surveys that show that IT has some issues with showing its value to the business. That's typically a clear sign. We also still see companies that choose to outsource their IT, which also means that they are not at the right level of maturity or cost effectiveness that the business would like. And, finally there are also complaints on the transparency of the costs. Why does IT charge me this amount of money and what does that money give me as a value, are still often questions. IT shared services provides a framework or a model to help answer these questions in a better way.
Ofstead: Those were wonderful points. The other thing about transparency is on service levels, which goes somewhat to Dana’s point that if you have specific service levels that you’ve agreed upon with the lines of business, you can measure those. You can be transparent about how well you’re meeting those service levels -- whether they are about help desk responsiveness or availability or response time -- all those things help build trust and show the value of IT.
Gardner: Clearly there are some imperatives internally for how IT can improve and project itself as more of a solutions provider, making customers satisfied internally, rather than being viewed as a bureaucratic cost center. What about external trends? Is there anything going on in the business world vis-à-vis globalization or vis-à-vis the technology itself that makes this a particularly auspicious time to begin embarking on IT shared services? Ewald, why don’t you take this one?
Comhaire: First of all, the service providers -- and HP is a good example of this – are modularizing our services offerings. For example, in the past we used to offer much more all-or-nothing outsourcing. Today, it's a very modular portfolio of what we call "managed services" offerings to our customers. This also makes it obvious that the customers have a lot of choice points, whether they want to run a service inside of their own company or eventually acquire it from the larger market. That’s definitely a trend that forces customers to modularize their offerings and make them more comparative to what the industry can offer.
Gardner: Do you mean that there’s more of an opportunity now for a hybrid approach, in which you can have some services provided internally, some provided externally, some as a service, or some as simply an off-premises technology infrastructure benefit? Do we have a spectrum of choices now in order to approach this problem flexibly?
Comhaire: Exactly, and it’s also easier for the businesses to compare, because in the past it was all-or-nothing. You would outsource all of IT. Today, for example, they can look selectively at one service and see that there’s a capability outside.
Let me give you a practical example. Let’s say in the oil and gas businesses they need to do bid on an oil field. In order to get the price as close as possible to the value of that oil field they need to a reservoir modeling. In the past, obviously they would need to buy all the equipment and all the software, bring it inside their own house, run the whole model and when the money is used up, then the modeling is basically done. Today, they can look at different offerings on the market -- and HP offers some of these -- where they can do the modeling on a per-week or per-day basis. They don’t need to own the equipment and they don’t need to pay for the software for the whole year. They can just rent it for a smaller period of time. So, there are a lot of choices. And as you have choice, you can compare. This drives the modularization of the services offering into shared, modular-type services.
Gardner: Are there any other global or mega trends that are underpinning the value and momentum toward IT shared services?
Ofstead: I think that the cost issues of the past years have forced a lot of companies to look at their models. They've been in a situation where lines of business would have a new application and they would buy servers dedicated to development and testing of that application, and then another set of servers for production. That tended to be a very constrained and ineffective approach. Utilization tended to be low on a lot of those servers. So, with new virtualization capabilities, companies are looking at models where servers are shared and virtualized. The only problem is: What does that do with the model where the line of business is buying the servers for specific application? They are at a point where in order to take advantage of technology, they have to look at different governance model anyway. I think that has led a lot of them to explore these kinds of alternatives.
Comhaire: I would just like to add one more -- the agility angle. Now that we're seeing business up-tick a little bit in the market, the need for greater agility is coming up again. We have been able to show both internally and externally that shared services provides a very agile environment in which the time-to-service is much shorter in a shared services environment.
Gardner: If you have a variety of services from a variety of sources, you can do a cost-benefit analysis on how to best go about them but also you can move them in and out with some speed and flexibility. Peg, you have mentioned governance. Are there any regulatory imperatives -- perhaps Sarbanes-Oxley -- that make shared services something to consider?
Comhaire: There are two ways to look at it. First, they could be an inhibitor. We often see that in the pharmaceuticals industry where they say, "Well, our environment is heavily regulated, so we cannot touch IT. It can never be shared."
Sometimes that is an excuse; other times, there is some validity in it. But often, there not a willingness to go through some of the procedures again, because then they need to re-document some of the procedures to meet regulations. On the other hand, if you take a look at Sarbanes-Oxley, it’s sometimes easier in a shared services environment because actually at the end of the day you have fewer environments. They are more shared and standardized -- and fewer things to therefore make Sarbanes Oxley-compliant at the end of the day. It saves you time and effort, and you can be compliant better. I can give an example: Often you can have some shared services that support some of the financial applications that need to produce Sarbanes-compliant reports. If they’re running on shared services most often, they have a better disaster recovery mechanism behind it, and thus helps you get more quickly compliant with Sarbanes-Oxley regulations.
Gardner: It seems to me that going to a shared services approach also provides the so-called "one-throat-to-choke" benefit. [Under shared services] there is a hierarchy within the IT organization, so you can go and get action [from the top]. The leadership can take the role of triage and prioritization -- and therefore provide satisfaction -- on a high-priority issue … more quickly.
Comhaire: Yeah! And with the clear accountability that shared services offers, this is adding to the point you just made.
Gardner: Okay. So, we’ve looked at some of the issues internally, we’ve looked at some of the major trends that are affecting this. What’s the pay off? How do we get people to make the plunge and say, “Wow! This is going to be disruptive; this is going to cause me to almost have to do a complete audit. And, you know what, I can’t transform what I don’t know.” It’s going to take quite a bit of activity, energy, and probably some cost up-front in order to take on this IT shared services benefits issue. What’s the pay off? What are the incentives that break through inertia against such change?
Ofstead: Well, there’s definitely cost savings. However lots of companies may say that they could make lots of those cost savings through mere centralization -- and that's the question that one constantly has to come back to.
But, the other side is, as Ewald mentioned before, as CIOs struggle to prove the value that IT has for the business, what value do they add other than being a back-office function? It’s proven through surveys that CIOs who have moved to a real shared-services model, where they are treating the line of business as a customer, are moving away from this cost-centric model. They are seen as adding significantly more value to the business. So, that’s a huge win for IT and it removes CIOs from being in this situation of constantly having their budget squeezed and putting them more into a partnership with the business.
Comhaire: I would like to add three others to the ones Peg mentioned. I think she mentioned the value and cost, which are clearly there in almost all the cases. Agility we've already mentioned. We can prove that a lot of customers value that tremendously, as well as quality-of-service improvements, because shared services typically are managed as a true service with end-to-end service management and a service-level agreements. That's a clear benefit to the business users, and sometimes if it’s implemented, it also reduces risk through better security combinations with the service. For example, compliance to regulations or a business continuity element added to the shared services also helps to reduce the business risk in general.
Gardner: There are obviously some qualitative and quantitative ways of viewing this. One would certainly be the IT budget, going up or going down year to year. At the same time, there would be a qualitative view -- what’s the level of satisfaction and productivity from the perspective of the internal constituents? Are you familiar with any company that has undergone such a transformation and has been able to see its budget decreasing and, at the same time, seeing general satisfaction and productivity increasing? Are there some proof points that we can look to here?
Comhair: Unfortunately, I can't mention the name of the customer, but we have started a complete IT shared-services transformation with a customer in Europe. In fact, it was started more than three years ago -- and it's really important that it’s already that long, because the customer could measure the before- and the end-states, and obviously understand the budgetary differences. And, so we do have those numbers, which are pretty spectacular from an operational cost-saving perspective. In the meantime it has also been really good for the overall profitability of the company -- or at least that large unit of the company has done really well in the subsequent years. So, we can see the reflection, not just on the cost side, but also on the overall health of the business in question.
Gardner: You mentioned something important there and that was the operational cost. It’s my understanding that in many organizations it’s not the up-front investment in technology or even acquisition of skills, but it’s in the long-term operational cost -- making up somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of the total IT budget -- that is the major cost center and therefore the place to look for the best return on efficiency. Is that your understanding as well?
Ofstead: Yes, and the other really keen thing -- and Ewald has mentioned this before -- is that this allows people to spend less money keeping the lights on, as it were, in the operational costs, and spend more of their budget on innovation. So, IT can actually do more of the things that the lines of business want it to.
Gardner: So, even if the budget doesn’t go down, there is an opportunity to reduce the routine ongoing costs and then apply those funds to a new initiative that will offer even higher productivity benefits.
Ofstead: Right -- and higher value.
Gardner: Where does this work best first? Are there any particular types of company -- by culture, by organization, perhaps ones that are either more decentralized or centralized -- that work better than others? Are there particular verticals that this makes sense in? Where are you seeing the sweet-spot in the market for where IT shared services is accepted first and then has the biggest return?
Ofstead: Well, we're seeing broad-based interest across the industries. However, in terms of a broad transformation of all of IT to a shared-services model, I’d say that the financial services sector is particularly active in that approach, and also the public sector. However, other industries, such as manufacturing, seem to be very interested in implementing selected shared services.
Gardner: Is that because of low margins -- because they're in a tight and competitive environment?
Ofstead: That could a part of it. There’s a lot of change in financial services right now. The public sector obviously has a lot of pressure in terms of transforming itself to be able to provide information to the public, and there are other changes going on with manufacturing. I see them interested in implementing individual utilities, such as the shared infrastructure utility or shared database utility; Ewald, is that also what you are seeing?
Comhaire: Absolutely, I just would like to add the interest from the telecommunications and service-provider markets and what’s typically driving them. Traditionally, in a telco you had the network operations site, which was very much customer focused with an outside portfolio. Then you had the internal IT, and they were very different, because you had telco protocols and you had enterprise IT protocols and standards, all of which were different.
Today, there’s a significant convergence of these protocols. Mainly the enterprise IT protocols now become the telco ones with some additional flavors, and that means that those CIOs of the internal IT become now very active as well in adopting the more service provider-type of operations that their external colleagues were doing for a long time. So, we also see service-provider market telcos being very, very active in shared services.
Gardner: Let me move to the conversation a little bit to what I mentioned at the outset, the interesting intersection of IT shared services and services oriented architecture, or SOA. It seems to me that this is something that has a potential to be a whole greater than the sum of its parts -- that IT shared services is approaching a productivity issue set from one perspective, and then SOA enters from a more technological perspective. Can you perhaps delve in a little bit and help me understand the harmonious relationship between IT shared services and SOA -- and what this potentially means in terms of the magnitude of the transformation potential?
Comhaire: I would be happy to take this first, and, Peg, if you want to add something, go ahead. First of all, there are a lot of commonalities, but there are also clear differences. IT shared services is more of an operating model, a concept of how IT can provide services to the business. SOA is actually more an architectural approach and there are clear differences from that perspective.
But, there are also many things in common. For example, what’s definitely in common with SOA is a model of a consumer and a producer of a certain service. Obviously, the same applies to shared services where the service in this case is an IT-type service -- not an application but an IT-type service. That’s one place in common. The other area that’s in common and that is maybe a little bit more unique for our approach to shared services is that we have architected a typical IT shared services portfolio that the IT organization would offer to the business using SOA principles.
What does that mean? That means that services can be reused together, or architected in such a way that one shared service can be applied next to another -- to solve a bigger problem. That is something that not necessarily IT shared services mandates as a concept but it is something that, if you do a clever combination of both IT shared services and SOA you can get a lot of business value.
And the third location is as we implement individual shared services we also try to expose that functionality under a web services format, which means that again the service would be reusable at a higher level in a transparent way, which is another SOA concept applied to shared services.
Gardner: So, do you view this that SOA provides a new set of tools that can enable IT shared services? And then provides this larger benefit from productivity and agility? Is that how you see it?
Comhaire: Yes, absolutely. SOA is an enabling concept and enabling architecture for shared services, and if you apply those concepts of SOA to IT shared services you can get a lot of additional benefit over and above what the normal shared services model already would offer to you.
Gardner: Is it too much to ask of any organization to try to do these both at the same time? It seems that if you could do them simultaneously there would be a huge payoff, but it also sounds almost daunting.
Comhaire: That is absolutely true, and that’s why we are definitely helping the customer by doing some of that work for them. For example, we have our own internal templates -- starting points -- of an IT shared services catalog, and the way we architected those services is already SOA-compliant. So, in a way it may be too much to ask of a customer who doesn’t do this as a business all the time. Typically those customer do this once, but for us as a provider of IT shared services it’s kind of a must-do, and we need to spend just a little bit more time as we architect and build these shared services to make sure they are SOA-compliant.
Gardner: And, Peg, it seems to me that if you were to take two similar organizations -- perhaps operating in similar markets, of similar size, with similar resources -- and one takes the plunge and does SOA and IT shared services in some combination over a period of time -- and the other doesn’t. Well, the company that does would have a huge competitive advantage and a productivity advantage. Is that grasping at straws?
Ofstead: No, absolutely not. Again, the financial services market is very competitive at the moment and I think that’s one reason we’re seeing so much motion in that area. Obviously, we've talked about a cost advantage and an agility advantage, and the combination of two really could make a huge difference for a company.
Gardner: Do you have anything else to offer in terms of how companies should conceptualize of SOA and IT shared services as sort of top-down? That is, would the “C”-class executive work down from the CIO with an IT shared-services mandate? And is SOA perhaps more organic and needs to happen down in the developer ranks and really change the way in which the development takes place? Can we simplify it to that level, that one is sort of bottom-up and the other top-down?
Ofstead: Well, the concepts are extremely synergistic, and I think you want to do a good job of explaining that. But, both transformations are not small. There is a lot involved and so an organization would really need a strong commitment from the top to embark on these. They would need to understand that the full implementation probably takes a number of years.
So, a clear road map with specific projects and short-term demonstrable results, I think, is important. Having a clear vision of where you’ll be after nine to 12 months, where you’ll be after the second year or the third year, and understanding that this is not a small change that you are embarking on – these are key things for either one of these transformations.
Comhaire: But, just to add to what Peg already said, in our approach -- and that’s actually true for SOA as well -- we do offer top-down and bottom-up approaches. For example, a bottom-up approach in shared services would be when we help customers build out just one shared service. And, we try to do it well, guide them through the whole concept of what it takes to build out a shared service that reduces the scope to one.
In fact, you can do this for SOA as well. You can apply it to one application or a small set of applications that you redesign using SOA concepts. At the same time, you can have the strategic approach top-down to say, "I have decided to move to a shared services model,” or “I’m going to transform my whole application portfolio over the period of time to all SOA-compliant applications." For both, you can walk this continuum from totally strategic to a more tactical, and play-it-small, try-it-first, and then see which works and extend it to the more strategic direction.
Gardner: Well that brings up an interesting question. What do you see happening in the field? How do people do this crawl, walk, run approach? What do you recommend and perhaps what is HP doing in terms of putting some structure around that process?
Ofstead: Well, as Ewald said, we have customers who prefer a more broad-based transformation, and we have other customers who prefer to implement selected shared-service utilities one at a time. We have a methodology and process around both.
We’re helping customers with both of those approaches. Our methodologies are consistent. So, if you start, for example, from the bottom-up, as Ewald was saying, implementing one or more selected shared service utilities -- for example assured infrastructure utility or a shared database utility -- you can ultimately go through the transformation. But that’s a decision the organization will make, based on benefits they saw of implementing just selected utility.
On the other hand, for companies that have really looked at shared services carefully and have decided to take the plunge and do a broad-based strategic transformation, we have a reference architecture and the tools and methodology to help them with that process. We have a clear vision of exactly what’s needed, and we can help them assess where they are today, set their goal of how much of shared services they want to implement, in terms of the level of maturity they aspire to, and give them a clear road map on how to get there.
Gardner: Are there any lessons from other folks that have undertaken this sort of activity in terms of how to get started and not necessarily implement the shared services, but how to get yourself ready to begin implementing? Are there any first steps in preparation that you‘ve seen?
Ofstead: In working with our clients and also at the Shared Services Conference that was held in the U.S. this year, I heard all of the people who have embarked on this road say that it’s very important to have an external partner to help guide you through this -- a change agent. That was consistent among all the presentations: You need someone to help guide you through this kind of a change. Obviously, a key thing is helping people understand why you’re making the change, and that’s your people within the IT organization as well as in the lines of business.
Comhaire: I think you said something that’s really valid: It’s a people, process, technology change. So, that’s definitely a key. Depending on which level we talk to, some of our customers see this just as a technology problem, "How do we move multiple workloads on a shared platform?"
They forget about the fact there is a whole impact on process and, as Peg mentioned, a management of change on the people, on the staffing side that they need to take into account to guarantee success. That’s a lesson we have definitely learned: We have to make sure that we correctly value the interdependencies between the people, the process, and the technology. And even if you get those three right, at the end of the day it’s also about designing and building your services. Does your service meet the requirements of your business consumers? Is it well aligned with where your company wants to go? So, there are some additional elements besides just people, process, and technology that are also key elements for doing it right.
Ofstead: And long-term, one of the key things is that customers need to start is to begin benchmarking themselves. That means really comparing the cost of their service and the quality of their service to what’s available from external service providers. This means actually implementing continuous process improvements around their shared services. So, it’s very important that people understand all these things and they not just view the shared-pool of technology that they are using.
Gardner: Well, we are almost out of time. I think this has been a fascinating discussion. Let’s look to the future briefly. What are the implications for IT shared services, particularly in concert with SOA? It seems to me that we have an opportunity for a marketplace effect on a number of different levels. IT organizations that have this agility can shop around, can swap sourcing options in and out, based on the performance and payoff. And then, in a sense this sets companies and enterprises up for an even larger set of productivity goals, when they can bring competition in marketplace forces into IT -- how they source it, how they deploy it themselves internally, and also in providing a much more market-oriented approach to the internal customer. And, as we mentioned the public sector -- government for example -- how they actually provide services to their constituencies, or voters, or taxpayers. Can you elaborate a little bit on what is the potential, the future road map is for all of this?
Ofstead: I think for the CIO who does this properly and just doesn’t centralize, but actually changes the model from a cost-centric model to a service-provider model, it’s what makes them an entrepreneur within their organization.
Instead of being constrained by their annual budget, they’re able to really work as a partner with the line of business. It certainly puts them in a position where they can help be an innovator with the line of business, which is huge. There’s the cost savings we talked about, and the agility.
For companies that do this properly not only will the IT organization be seen as very successful, but the organization as a whole will too. They would be much more competitive, much more successful. It could make a tremendous difference in the success of a corporation. Ewald?
Comhaire: Yes, and to add to some of the things you’ve already mentioned, I think it will also bring IT closer to the business; because within IT you start to think like a business. “What do I offer? How do I price, not just on what costs I have [but on] planning for my demand and my supply?”
So, a whole series of notions that typically only business units within a company would think about -- now have IT thinking in same terms as the business. This typically will bring them much closer together because they start talking the same language, and so on.
And another aspect I think for the future is that IT organizations will become a little bit more like service brokers. I think you described this really well. That means they have to in-source, outsource, and combine these things much more dynamically than today -- and I think that will change the IT landscape over the next years.
Ofstead: To build on that, one kind of hidden benefit that a CIO would have is really true visibility into his cost, and an organization that’s much more service-centric than technology-centric.
Today, many IT organizations are organized around technology. They may know what technologies cost. They may know what that they spend on servers every year, for example -- they may not even know that. But they certainly don’t know what it costs to provide a service. For example, what does it cost for each SAP transaction?
Once they move to this new model, there’s lot of benefits in terms of knowing what their true costs are, knowing the quality of their services, really understanding that well, and being able to really make very sound business decisions about what they in-source and what they either outsource or out-task.
Gardner: Well great. Thanks very much. I think we need to wrap this up. It’s been a discussion about IT shared services, how it’s developing as a productivity and agility benefit and as a business alignment and transformation benefit. It really does encompass a lot in the modern corporation and enterprise.
Joining us for this discussion, have been two Hewlett-Packard executives: Peg Ofstead, the worldwide solution lead for HP’s IT Shared Services and IT Consulting Services organization, as well as Ewald Comhaire, the director of the global practice for Next Generation Infrastructure and Technology within HP services. Thank you very much both for joining us.
Listen to the podcast here.
Podcast sponsor: Hewlett-Packard.
Transcript of Dana Gardner’s BriefingsDirect podcast on IT shared services. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2006. All rights reserved.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Full Transcript of Dana Gardner’s BriefingsDirect Podcast on the Impact of Eclipse on ISVs
Transcript of BriefingsDirect[TM] podcast with Dana Gardner, recorded July 6, 2006. Podcast sponsor: Eclipse Foundation.
Listen to the podcast here.
Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions and you’re listening to BriefingsDirect. Today’s sponsored podcast is a discussion around the “Eclipse Effect” on small businesses, growing businesses, generally looking at the business benefits of Eclipse for those that are taking advantage of the open source approach. Joining us are Damion Heredia, director of product management at Lombardi Software. Welcome to the show, Damion.
Damion Heredia: Thank you.
Gardner: Also joining us is Maher Masri, the president and co-founder of Genuitec, a developer of Java- and Eclipse-based tools. Welcome, Maher.
Maher Masri: Thank you.
Gardner: First let’s go to Damion. Tell us a little bit about Lombardi. You are a business process management suite producer, and you also do support. You have developed a software product. What is it that you do with Eclipse and why?
Heredia: First, business process management, or what we'll call BPM, is focused on solving a problem that exists in the large- and medium-sized corporations, where a lot of applications are built by feature and function and siloed. In reality, the business runs in a process, and that process needs to be managed and have visibility into how well it’s doing -- where it needs to be improved, what are the bottlenecks, who is involved, etc.
So, Lombardi produces a software product that we call TeamWorks Enterprise Edition, which helps development shops and IT shops, along with business analysts, collaborate on the development and deployment of processes in the organization. This involves automation, managing business roles, developing user interfaces, and a lot of all-around capturing of metrics and displaying scoreboards of how well your business is doing around these processes.
Gardner: So you are a classic ISV: fast-growth, working into an area that’s fairly new and growing. So, go-to-market, and speed-to-market, and reducing cost of development are essential, I assume?
Heredia: Absolutely. In the last three or four years the BPM market has just exploded. We’ve done very well in having one of the top products in this space in about three years. To tell how we got into Eclipse, we have a strong engineering culture here that’s responsible for monitoring the new technologies that are emerging, seeing how we can apply those to business problems that we have among our customers.
Just as I am responsible for understanding the market needs, they are responsible for the technical needs. They had been using Eclipse for a little while as a development platform, and as soon as it was spun out of IBM, it became very appealing to us. We saw the community gathering around it and saw an opportunity for us to leverage it as our standard platform for delivering user interfaces to both developers and business analyst end-users.
Gardner: Okay. Let’s move over to Maher at Genuitec. You are also an ISV, but in a little different characterization. You are producing tools and development suites to then help other ISVs. Can you tell us more about your company? How you came about, and why Eclipse is so important to you?
Masri: Certainly, Dana. Genuitec, the parent company behind the product MyEclipse Enterprise Workbench, really has been involved in the Eclipse space for quite sometime -- since the very early days of Eclipse, in 2001. We used be a consulting company, and the genesis of the company was in 1997, consulting in the J2EE space, helping companies built enterprise applications, large-scale applications.
And necessity being the mother of all inventions, we found in Eclipse unique capabilities to allow our developers and consultants help our customers build solutions faster. We also realized that Eclipse did not have the capabilities to provide enterprise solutions at that time, so we began building small plug-ins that gave rise ultimately in 2003 to the genesis of MyEclipse Enterprise Workbench, which today has become the leading integrated development environment (IDEs) for building enterprise work applications.
It's a large-scale set of development tool for all purposes [and] is used by well over 9,000 enterprises … around the world. Our user population is right now growing 10 percent, month-to-month, and is roughly about 270,000 users around the globe. We owe a debt of gratitude, to be honest with you, to the Eclipse framework itself.
Genuitec, in that sense, is truly a Cinderella story in that we owe our ability to become the lead enterprise IDE today to our decision to adopt Eclipse as a base platform. Eclipse offered us an incredibly unique product platform geared for rapid and incremental delivery and allowed us to grow the product and features set over time, becoming probably the most comprehensive IDE you can find in the market. And we’re very glad and blessed to reach that point at this time.
Gardner: Now, you had some other choices back then, and Eclipse wasn’t as prominent as it is now. So [choosing Eclipse] was a bit of a gamble for you. What made you go to Eclipse rather than some of the other environments?
Masri: You have asked the key question that we ask internally. When one of our developers came to us in 2000, and said, “Hey, look at this wonderful IDE that’s available now. It's great,” we asked why should we care -- yet another IDE, yet another framework, that’s available out there.
And, it dawned on us at that point that we are indeed looking at a truly disruptive concept, very analogous to the innovation that followed the PC market in the early '80s with the introduction of the open standard for the PC motherboard. In that sense it became very clear to us that Eclipse has a significant opportunity to become the motherboard for applications of all types. And, it can truly usher in innovations beyond our ability to comprehend. And so, yes, it was a gamble at that time, but was a strong selling point for us and an opportunity we could not miss.
Gardner: And is there anything beyond the technology, in terms of methodology and community, that you think is an accelerant here? What are the politics of it that seems to work?
Masri: We're back again to the key word: "community." The old joke is that if a tree falls in the forest, does any body hear it? And the point really is that it’s a moot point, because does anybody care? You have to have enough people around something for it to matter. And that’s why Eclipse matters, because it has a significant following; it has a significant community. They are willing to use it, support it, build around it. And over time, as we followed the Eclipse space, it became clear that other companies are willing to put significant amounts of investments in this platform, and we would be remiss not to do the same on our end.
Gardner: So, I suppose it's a real viral adoption pattern -- the chicken and the egg -- which comes first, and how do you get the volume that creates the power that then begets more volume. Is there anything about this Eclipse approach that you think was unique in getting that whole process jump-started, or was it really sort of luck?
Masri: Well you've got to rely on some luck, right? But not all the time. And again, I go back to the motherboard for the personal computer. If you look back to the '80s, it was very clear who was the market leader in the personal computer space -- and it wasn’t IBM or the personal computer itself.
It was necessary for a new disruption to be introduced in the market to create an entirely new market. No one could see what it would become today. And that’s really what we are talking about here in Eclipse, it’s much more than the technology, it’s much more than just a simple IDE. It’s much more than the underlying companies that are following it.
The future for Eclipse is probably 10 times what it is today, and the future for Eclipse is really in the application space -- in the rich-client application space. Genuitec was the company that was the author of the concept in 2001. We saw Eclipse going well beyond IDE.
Gardner: You mentioned the rich client, and we can refer to that as RCP, the Rich Client Platform, in our discussion. I want to take it back to Damion at Lombardi. What does this rich client aspect bring to the table for you as an ISV in terms of getting your product out to market? Is it cost saving? Is it the simplicity factor? What is it about RCP that’s appealing to you?
Heredia: For us it’s really about what it's going to add in terms of value to our end customers, as well as how fast we can get out to market. RCP itself is the primary platform for our customers in IT shops.
You walk into any IT shop and they will have Eclipse developers somewhere in that organization. As an ISV delivering software into those IT shops, we need to be a good fit into the tools that they use everyday. So it was a clear winner for us to build plug-ins for TeamWorks to be dropped in to the developer’s tools that they already have. You don’t have to learn yet another IDE or another development environment. The TeamWorks’ plug‑ins, the process modules, the simulator, the optimizer on it can be dropped into an existing Eclipse environment.
Now that’s a benefit to our customer as all-in-one environment to be focused on when developing applications. For us internally, we came from previously using Swing as our primary development platform. What Eclipse does for us is just allow us to focus on the things that actually add value to our customers. Rather than spending time on designing menus and custom controls and views, widgets, managing the undo and redo situations. Eclipse provides us the framework to build on top of.
Gardner: So, you are focusing on your business logic and your value-add to your customer?
Heredia: That’s right
Gardner: Is there any other benefit in terms of the size of the market that appeals to you? That is to say the community -- getting back to that chicken-and-egg thing?
Heredia: Sure. As a smaller company -- smaller than IBM, SAP, and BEA -- we have the opportunity to leverage the work of larger vendors and incorporate commoditized functionality, such as Web service integration. We have a WTP project, GMF [Graphical Modeling Project], the GEF projects, even BIRT for business intelligence. Leveraging and incorporating those pieces of functionality into our product, we don’t have to spend engineering resources to build them. So for us the community offers us a jump-start on commoditized functionality, and then allows us to focus on the innovative features and functions, and on solving the problems of our customers.
Gardner: And I suppose that also encourages you to give back to the community, so that this benefit keeps going.
Heredia: Absolutely! We were the first BPM vendor to join the Eclipse Foundation and big supporters of the process and business model. But the community aspect of contributing back to the community what we’ve learned, what we’ve changed, etc. betters the overall products at home.
Gardner: Let's bounce back to the Maher at Genuitec. What is it about some of the newer technologies in RCP that has a business benefit for your company? I am thinking about Eclipse 3.2.
Masri: Let me just step back for a moment and give you a little bit more context on what really gets us excited. What you see in the adoption level are the 130 to 140 companies that are member companies of the Eclipse Foundation today. They are building hundreds of solutions on top of the Eclipse platform, and as Lombardi mentioned, allowing companies to stand on the shoulders of giants to build, to innovate, and deliver more convenience to the end user.
But, what you don’t see are the thousands of companies that are building rich-client application and are out there realizing the same benefit that the Eclipse platform offers them from life-cycle management, from an ability to provide common framework tools, getting tools from somewhere else, and conveniences from somewhere else. Those thousands are truly turning into millions.
That’s what really excites all of us in terms of the potential growth for Eclipse itself. As we have developed the MyEclipse Enterprise Workbench we also offered consulting services around Eclipse as a platform. The revenue that we had in the early years predominantly came through the consulting services. We had the opportunity to see quite a bit of innovation in people applying the platform to building desktop applications, team applications, and applications that would have cost them an order -- multiple orders -- of magnitude [more money] to start from scratch.
They were able to do it in half the time at one-tenth the cost to build that solution. That kind of virus is going to catch on -- the features are available in Eclipse 3.2 right now -- and it is going to afford these customers and these companies the opportunity to do this faster and cheaper. So, you are going to see a rapid adoption.
The key here is going to be education, making sure that the population at-large, the people that are considering such solutions, have the opportunity to evaluate Eclipse in addition to, or in lieu of, other technologies. That would give them the right answer to the problems they are trying to solve.
Gardner: Let me ask you another question that comes up a lot, and that is: What about Microsoft? What about the power it has in the marketplace in all of those desktops, in all of those Microsoft shops, in all those enterprises that have developers who have been doing Visual Basic and Visual Studio activities? And what about the benefit of having many languages and then one runtime, and the monolithic power within that automation function?
Do you think that the Eclipse approach is separate and distinct, [compared] with what Microsoft has done in the market? And how do you view the large market presence that Microsoft has? Is it an opportunity, or it a threat?
Masri: Let me take a crack at the answer. The view of Microsoft environmental development tools or technologies versus Eclipse is often viewed as dimetrically polar opposites, which we don’t necessarily agree with.
Yes, Microsoft offers development tools; yes, they offer frameworks for building applications; but both could certainly benefit from a framework that allows the community at-large to build faster, better solutions and to benefit and to commercialize those capabilities. I suspect Microsoft is going to view it as a competitive solution. I think over time that view will change as the market grows to adopt more and more of the [Eclipse] framework. That view and the patterns of behavior will change over time to a more collaborative model rather than the competitive model.
Gardner: Damion, over at Lombardi, you must have faced this thought process. All that Microsoft brings to table for an ISV -- and then this other approach. Do you think that they are diametrically opposed? Or is there some way of having the best of both?
Heredia: We are pretty pragmatic about it. We are a Java shop in the back-end. So, our engines are a platform for delivering authoring interfaces through Eclipse, all based on Java. Our front-end is based on Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, etc., so it is .NET on the front-end, if you will.
But, to be pragmatic about it, when we walk into a customer, I rarely now see a customer that is 100 percent .NET-Visual Studio. In large enterprises, there are heterogenous environments. They have an Java app server farm purchased from an app vendor or ERP vendor, or they have some applications that have been brought up onto a JBoss application server they have apps on. Their skill sets are hybrid: both .NET and Java.
And for us, the Eclipse platform is the delivery mechanism into this. That makes it feel like a Windows environment, in the sense of it’s not Swing, and it feels natural. But, ultimately for the short-term, I do see some developers going between Visual Studio and their Eclipse environments. What I have seen a little more of is the .NET-Visual Studio, which is focused on building services and is a Service Oriented Architecture. You know, it exposes some back-end functionality as a service, exposes a Web service, and then [you] come into the Lombardi TeamWorks and it builds the process and integrates with those services. So, you can segment off the functionality within IT.
Masri: Just to add to that, we maintain a fairly thorough understanding of our customer base and population use. The majority of our customers still use the Windows environment for their design side, as most tools -- 90 percent of tools are run on the Windows platform. We are seeing about five percent using Linux, and a growing minority of Apple users that are two to three percent grown over time.
So, I re-emphasize it: There are synergies and it is a heterogenous environment, and it is going to continue to be such. Things don’t really change overnight, and we've got a way to benefit, from our perspective as a tools provider, because our customers are asking us to provide both Java and .NET solutions at the same time.
Gardner: In terms of cost benefits, have either of you have been able to put dollars-and-cents value on what Eclipse means? And this might be more relevant for Damion of Lombardi.
Heredia: Let me talk about a few areas that we really take advantage of. One is in prototyping. Some of the challenges around innovation always lead to how you get the idea from the white board to what we put in the hands of the users in the market. With Swing, in our previous development environments, it would take two to three weeks to develop a prototype of that innovation. Whereas with Eclipse it would take me two or three days, especially with Eclipse 3.2 and the GMF project.
With the Graphical Modeling Project we've been able to have tools at our disposal that we can extend and build around. Getting the function out of these graphical modeling tools is greatly increasing our ability to deliver something to market. Like you said, it's just a substantial reduction of time to the prototype phase, which ultimately means that I am going to deliver the right solution faster. At the same time, we then take that extra time to put it in the hands of the users and iterate with them more quickly, especially with our beta sponsors and other design sponsors. So, the idea is fresh, and we come with the best solution possible.
Gardner: I want to poke at that modeling issue a little bit. A lot of organizations recognized in the long-term that modeling makes a lot of sense. It's sort of like for your own health, you've got to eat well and exercise a lot, but sometimes you just never get to it. Is there any thing about Eclipse that helps you move toward modeling? Is there an Eclipse accelerant to modeling that is somehow part-and-parcel with the adoption of it, or is it just a path you were going to take anyway?
Heredia: Eclipse, both the EMF framework and now with GMF, which came down with Eclipse 3.2, played very well with our internal approach to TeamWorks as a whole. We’ve taken a shared model approach.
So, we want our customers to model the process, the business process and not to write code or scripts or worry about maintaining assets of code, but to worry [instead] about the model itself, and then during runtime interpret that for the actual business process. So, when we moved to Eclipse, that paradigm holds well.
Now, with Eclipse 3.2 we’re taking that to a whole new level -- 3.2 with the GMF is going to allow us to have our customers extend a meta model in a way that it’s scalable, it’s maintainable, and it fits well with the developers’ skill sets. So, it allows them to add attributes and new components and extend the meta model, using graphical tools that are delivered from Eclipse projects.
Gardner: So, better requirements process, reuse of modeling, faster time to market, and more agility to react to markets. How about back to that question about money or at least a percentage of effort. Do you have any kind of metric that you would say Eclipse is doing "blank" for us?
Heredia: I wouldn’t disclose any monetary amounts, but I think the example I gave holds pretty well, in the sense of something that will take two three weeks in Swing takes me two to three days in Eclipse. That's powerful, especially for developers who do not like doing the monotonous, tedious work of designing the infrastructure of a user interface. They want to focus on the function that’s going to add value.
Gardner: How about you, Maher? Do you have any sense of a return on investment here; do you have any metrics you can apply to what Eclipse allows for you and your customers?
Masri: I can give you a very simple metric from our perspective. When MyEclipse was launched in January 2003, we had less then 10 developers allocated to the project. And then, in less than three years, we emerged to be one of the leaders in the tools space, competing on features with companies an order or two orders of magnitude larger than we are.
You could not find a better metric than that. The platform allowed us the ability to, as I said, innovate and incrementally build solutions and add features over time in a rapid manner. We rely on the reliability and the quality of the underlying platforms, such that we exude confidence that the end users are adopting solutions of equal, if not better, value than what they can find somewhere else.
Gardner: I suppose the bottom line here is just far better developer productivity.
Masri: Absolutely. And again, it’s much more than the technology itself. It’s the ability to incrementally deliver solutions over time without having to wait the traditional two years that are required in a soup-to-nuts implementation of a new solution.
In the past, for every solution that you delivered, you had to wait anywhere between 12 and 24 months to deliver a new IDE and new product, because you had to reinvent everything inside that framework. Contrast to that to a breadboard that allows you to add functionalities and features without modifying that breadboard over time. Or better yet, let somebody else worry about that over time. It gives you a leg up on the competition that don’t choose that path.
Gardner: And so, I suppose, there's benefit of adoption, a benefit over time, and then sort of a tax or penalty for those who don’t get that community benefit and reduced time-to-market that will accelerate and keep building.
Masri: Add to that the gravity of the critical mass on the commerce side. As this was described by us at Lombardi: The more people that use it, they find it more convenient to adopt the same technology. The pull that happens as a part of the larger community of users is dragging everybody in this direction. It certainly helps people like us all who want faster adoption from the commerce side.
Gardner: It’s almost like there is, in effect, here -- where Eclipse is making you an offer you can’t refuse -- but it’s doing it in a way that’s a community-based way, rather than a top-down or lock-in way.
Masri: That's a lesson we learned early on in delivering our business solution, and that’s how we were able to innovate -- by removing any friction from the end user adoption, and allowing them to adopt the solution, because it was literally a no brainier at that point in time.
Gardner: I know you are both active in the Eclipse community, and you probably make your wish list known that way. But for the benefit of our audience: Looking forward, what would you like to see brought to the Eclipse community that would help you in your business -- that is to say, have a direct business benefit to you? Why don’t we start with Damion, what’s on your wish list for the future?
Heredia: Yeah, one of the things is what came in Eclipse 3.2 is the GMF, but I think what we are looking to see in the market going forward with Eclipse is commoditization of other technologies. I think integration is a big area that Eclipse can take advantage of and commoditize; a lot of integration work done in IT organizations, especially around Web services with the WTP project, and possibly even legacy integration.
Each vendor has its own flavor of doing it, but in reality it’s a pretty standard thing to do and straight-forward if you have the right tools. In addition to what Eclipse 3.2 brought to the table -- and we’ll see more of the tools that allow developers to model their logic, their business logic, their intent of what the application should do graphically -- I think we’ll see a move away from just writing code and more about maintaining the model. It represents what your application is supposed to do, and then whether it's interpreting or generating code at the back end, letting that model derive the functionality of the app.
Gardner: How about Maher? With you at Genuitec, what’s on your wish list for Eclipse?
Masri: It’s truly a simple wish -- and we’re seeing traction toward that end. It’s simply to see the visible adoption for industry protocols of the platform. We’re certainly well subscribed in terms of the tools market, well represented in terms of the commoditization or normalization is taking place around the technology itself. There is quite a quite a bit of need out there in the manufacturing world -- pharmaceuticals, for example -- that would greatly benefit from adopting the rich-client platform as part of their desktop or their application delivery life-cycle that will benefit everyone in the long term.
I suppose there is also an opportunity for community to develop right within that vertical industry for specifics that have to do with logic and issues and taxonomy and schema and all these other things that are very granular and specific but that again can benefit from a community process.
Gardner: Well, I want to thank you both for sharing. I think it’s been a good discussion. It really helped me better understand why Eclipse has taken off so quickly. It’s clear from you folks who are benefiting from it that you see some passion and a long-term process here.
Well, joining us for this discussion on some of the business benefits of Eclipse, an ISV, Lombardi Software, and representing the company is Damion Heredia, the director of product management. Thanks very much, Damion.
Heredia: Thank you for having me.
Gardner: And also on a tools side, an Eclipse-based tools maker, Genuitec. And representing that is the CEO Maher Masri. Thanks for joining.
Masri: Thank you, Dana.
Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions. You’ve been listening to BriefingsDirect and an Eclipse Foundation-sponsored discussion about the business benefits of Eclipse. Thanks for listening.
Podcast sponsor: Eclipse Foundation. Listen to the podcast here.
Transcript of Dana Gardner’s BriefingsDirect podcast on the impact of Eclipse on ISVs. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2006. All rights reserved.
Listen to the podcast here.
Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions and you’re listening to BriefingsDirect. Today’s sponsored podcast is a discussion around the “Eclipse Effect” on small businesses, growing businesses, generally looking at the business benefits of Eclipse for those that are taking advantage of the open source approach. Joining us are Damion Heredia, director of product management at Lombardi Software. Welcome to the show, Damion.
Damion Heredia: Thank you.
Gardner: Also joining us is Maher Masri, the president and co-founder of Genuitec, a developer of Java- and Eclipse-based tools. Welcome, Maher.
Maher Masri: Thank you.
Gardner: First let’s go to Damion. Tell us a little bit about Lombardi. You are a business process management suite producer, and you also do support. You have developed a software product. What is it that you do with Eclipse and why?
Heredia: First, business process management, or what we'll call BPM, is focused on solving a problem that exists in the large- and medium-sized corporations, where a lot of applications are built by feature and function and siloed. In reality, the business runs in a process, and that process needs to be managed and have visibility into how well it’s doing -- where it needs to be improved, what are the bottlenecks, who is involved, etc.
So, Lombardi produces a software product that we call TeamWorks Enterprise Edition, which helps development shops and IT shops, along with business analysts, collaborate on the development and deployment of processes in the organization. This involves automation, managing business roles, developing user interfaces, and a lot of all-around capturing of metrics and displaying scoreboards of how well your business is doing around these processes.
Gardner: So you are a classic ISV: fast-growth, working into an area that’s fairly new and growing. So, go-to-market, and speed-to-market, and reducing cost of development are essential, I assume?
Heredia: Absolutely. In the last three or four years the BPM market has just exploded. We’ve done very well in having one of the top products in this space in about three years. To tell how we got into Eclipse, we have a strong engineering culture here that’s responsible for monitoring the new technologies that are emerging, seeing how we can apply those to business problems that we have among our customers.
Just as I am responsible for understanding the market needs, they are responsible for the technical needs. They had been using Eclipse for a little while as a development platform, and as soon as it was spun out of IBM, it became very appealing to us. We saw the community gathering around it and saw an opportunity for us to leverage it as our standard platform for delivering user interfaces to both developers and business analyst end-users.
Gardner: Okay. Let’s move over to Maher at Genuitec. You are also an ISV, but in a little different characterization. You are producing tools and development suites to then help other ISVs. Can you tell us more about your company? How you came about, and why Eclipse is so important to you?
Masri: Certainly, Dana. Genuitec, the parent company behind the product MyEclipse Enterprise Workbench, really has been involved in the Eclipse space for quite sometime -- since the very early days of Eclipse, in 2001. We used be a consulting company, and the genesis of the company was in 1997, consulting in the J2EE space, helping companies built enterprise applications, large-scale applications.
And necessity being the mother of all inventions, we found in Eclipse unique capabilities to allow our developers and consultants help our customers build solutions faster. We also realized that Eclipse did not have the capabilities to provide enterprise solutions at that time, so we began building small plug-ins that gave rise ultimately in 2003 to the genesis of MyEclipse Enterprise Workbench, which today has become the leading integrated development environment (IDEs) for building enterprise work applications.
It's a large-scale set of development tool for all purposes [and] is used by well over 9,000 enterprises … around the world. Our user population is right now growing 10 percent, month-to-month, and is roughly about 270,000 users around the globe. We owe a debt of gratitude, to be honest with you, to the Eclipse framework itself.
Genuitec, in that sense, is truly a Cinderella story in that we owe our ability to become the lead enterprise IDE today to our decision to adopt Eclipse as a base platform. Eclipse offered us an incredibly unique product platform geared for rapid and incremental delivery and allowed us to grow the product and features set over time, becoming probably the most comprehensive IDE you can find in the market. And we’re very glad and blessed to reach that point at this time.
Gardner: Now, you had some other choices back then, and Eclipse wasn’t as prominent as it is now. So [choosing Eclipse] was a bit of a gamble for you. What made you go to Eclipse rather than some of the other environments?
Masri: You have asked the key question that we ask internally. When one of our developers came to us in 2000, and said, “Hey, look at this wonderful IDE that’s available now. It's great,” we asked why should we care -- yet another IDE, yet another framework, that’s available out there.
And, it dawned on us at that point that we are indeed looking at a truly disruptive concept, very analogous to the innovation that followed the PC market in the early '80s with the introduction of the open standard for the PC motherboard. In that sense it became very clear to us that Eclipse has a significant opportunity to become the motherboard for applications of all types. And, it can truly usher in innovations beyond our ability to comprehend. And so, yes, it was a gamble at that time, but was a strong selling point for us and an opportunity we could not miss.
Gardner: And is there anything beyond the technology, in terms of methodology and community, that you think is an accelerant here? What are the politics of it that seems to work?
Masri: We're back again to the key word: "community." The old joke is that if a tree falls in the forest, does any body hear it? And the point really is that it’s a moot point, because does anybody care? You have to have enough people around something for it to matter. And that’s why Eclipse matters, because it has a significant following; it has a significant community. They are willing to use it, support it, build around it. And over time, as we followed the Eclipse space, it became clear that other companies are willing to put significant amounts of investments in this platform, and we would be remiss not to do the same on our end.
Gardner: So, I suppose it's a real viral adoption pattern -- the chicken and the egg -- which comes first, and how do you get the volume that creates the power that then begets more volume. Is there anything about this Eclipse approach that you think was unique in getting that whole process jump-started, or was it really sort of luck?
Masri: Well you've got to rely on some luck, right? But not all the time. And again, I go back to the motherboard for the personal computer. If you look back to the '80s, it was very clear who was the market leader in the personal computer space -- and it wasn’t IBM or the personal computer itself.
It was necessary for a new disruption to be introduced in the market to create an entirely new market. No one could see what it would become today. And that’s really what we are talking about here in Eclipse, it’s much more than the technology, it’s much more than just a simple IDE. It’s much more than the underlying companies that are following it.
The future for Eclipse is probably 10 times what it is today, and the future for Eclipse is really in the application space -- in the rich-client application space. Genuitec was the company that was the author of the concept in 2001. We saw Eclipse going well beyond IDE.
Gardner: You mentioned the rich client, and we can refer to that as RCP, the Rich Client Platform, in our discussion. I want to take it back to Damion at Lombardi. What does this rich client aspect bring to the table for you as an ISV in terms of getting your product out to market? Is it cost saving? Is it the simplicity factor? What is it about RCP that’s appealing to you?
Heredia: For us it’s really about what it's going to add in terms of value to our end customers, as well as how fast we can get out to market. RCP itself is the primary platform for our customers in IT shops.
You walk into any IT shop and they will have Eclipse developers somewhere in that organization. As an ISV delivering software into those IT shops, we need to be a good fit into the tools that they use everyday. So it was a clear winner for us to build plug-ins for TeamWorks to be dropped in to the developer’s tools that they already have. You don’t have to learn yet another IDE or another development environment. The TeamWorks’ plug‑ins, the process modules, the simulator, the optimizer on it can be dropped into an existing Eclipse environment.
Now that’s a benefit to our customer as all-in-one environment to be focused on when developing applications. For us internally, we came from previously using Swing as our primary development platform. What Eclipse does for us is just allow us to focus on the things that actually add value to our customers. Rather than spending time on designing menus and custom controls and views, widgets, managing the undo and redo situations. Eclipse provides us the framework to build on top of.
Gardner: So, you are focusing on your business logic and your value-add to your customer?
Heredia: That’s right
Gardner: Is there any other benefit in terms of the size of the market that appeals to you? That is to say the community -- getting back to that chicken-and-egg thing?
Heredia: Sure. As a smaller company -- smaller than IBM, SAP, and BEA -- we have the opportunity to leverage the work of larger vendors and incorporate commoditized functionality, such as Web service integration. We have a WTP project, GMF [Graphical Modeling Project], the GEF projects, even BIRT for business intelligence. Leveraging and incorporating those pieces of functionality into our product, we don’t have to spend engineering resources to build them. So for us the community offers us a jump-start on commoditized functionality, and then allows us to focus on the innovative features and functions, and on solving the problems of our customers.
Gardner: And I suppose that also encourages you to give back to the community, so that this benefit keeps going.
Heredia: Absolutely! We were the first BPM vendor to join the Eclipse Foundation and big supporters of the process and business model. But the community aspect of contributing back to the community what we’ve learned, what we’ve changed, etc. betters the overall products at home.
Gardner: Let's bounce back to the Maher at Genuitec. What is it about some of the newer technologies in RCP that has a business benefit for your company? I am thinking about Eclipse 3.2.
Masri: Let me just step back for a moment and give you a little bit more context on what really gets us excited. What you see in the adoption level are the 130 to 140 companies that are member companies of the Eclipse Foundation today. They are building hundreds of solutions on top of the Eclipse platform, and as Lombardi mentioned, allowing companies to stand on the shoulders of giants to build, to innovate, and deliver more convenience to the end user.
But, what you don’t see are the thousands of companies that are building rich-client application and are out there realizing the same benefit that the Eclipse platform offers them from life-cycle management, from an ability to provide common framework tools, getting tools from somewhere else, and conveniences from somewhere else. Those thousands are truly turning into millions.
That’s what really excites all of us in terms of the potential growth for Eclipse itself. As we have developed the MyEclipse Enterprise Workbench we also offered consulting services around Eclipse as a platform. The revenue that we had in the early years predominantly came through the consulting services. We had the opportunity to see quite a bit of innovation in people applying the platform to building desktop applications, team applications, and applications that would have cost them an order -- multiple orders -- of magnitude [more money] to start from scratch.
They were able to do it in half the time at one-tenth the cost to build that solution. That kind of virus is going to catch on -- the features are available in Eclipse 3.2 right now -- and it is going to afford these customers and these companies the opportunity to do this faster and cheaper. So, you are going to see a rapid adoption.
The key here is going to be education, making sure that the population at-large, the people that are considering such solutions, have the opportunity to evaluate Eclipse in addition to, or in lieu of, other technologies. That would give them the right answer to the problems they are trying to solve.
Gardner: Let me ask you another question that comes up a lot, and that is: What about Microsoft? What about the power it has in the marketplace in all of those desktops, in all of those Microsoft shops, in all those enterprises that have developers who have been doing Visual Basic and Visual Studio activities? And what about the benefit of having many languages and then one runtime, and the monolithic power within that automation function?
Do you think that the Eclipse approach is separate and distinct, [compared] with what Microsoft has done in the market? And how do you view the large market presence that Microsoft has? Is it an opportunity, or it a threat?
Masri: Let me take a crack at the answer. The view of Microsoft environmental development tools or technologies versus Eclipse is often viewed as dimetrically polar opposites, which we don’t necessarily agree with.
Yes, Microsoft offers development tools; yes, they offer frameworks for building applications; but both could certainly benefit from a framework that allows the community at-large to build faster, better solutions and to benefit and to commercialize those capabilities. I suspect Microsoft is going to view it as a competitive solution. I think over time that view will change as the market grows to adopt more and more of the [Eclipse] framework. That view and the patterns of behavior will change over time to a more collaborative model rather than the competitive model.
Gardner: Damion, over at Lombardi, you must have faced this thought process. All that Microsoft brings to table for an ISV -- and then this other approach. Do you think that they are diametrically opposed? Or is there some way of having the best of both?
Heredia: We are pretty pragmatic about it. We are a Java shop in the back-end. So, our engines are a platform for delivering authoring interfaces through Eclipse, all based on Java. Our front-end is based on Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, etc., so it is .NET on the front-end, if you will.
But, to be pragmatic about it, when we walk into a customer, I rarely now see a customer that is 100 percent .NET-Visual Studio. In large enterprises, there are heterogenous environments. They have an Java app server farm purchased from an app vendor or ERP vendor, or they have some applications that have been brought up onto a JBoss application server they have apps on. Their skill sets are hybrid: both .NET and Java.
And for us, the Eclipse platform is the delivery mechanism into this. That makes it feel like a Windows environment, in the sense of it’s not Swing, and it feels natural. But, ultimately for the short-term, I do see some developers going between Visual Studio and their Eclipse environments. What I have seen a little more of is the .NET-Visual Studio, which is focused on building services and is a Service Oriented Architecture. You know, it exposes some back-end functionality as a service, exposes a Web service, and then [you] come into the Lombardi TeamWorks and it builds the process and integrates with those services. So, you can segment off the functionality within IT.
Masri: Just to add to that, we maintain a fairly thorough understanding of our customer base and population use. The majority of our customers still use the Windows environment for their design side, as most tools -- 90 percent of tools are run on the Windows platform. We are seeing about five percent using Linux, and a growing minority of Apple users that are two to three percent grown over time.
So, I re-emphasize it: There are synergies and it is a heterogenous environment, and it is going to continue to be such. Things don’t really change overnight, and we've got a way to benefit, from our perspective as a tools provider, because our customers are asking us to provide both Java and .NET solutions at the same time.
Gardner: In terms of cost benefits, have either of you have been able to put dollars-and-cents value on what Eclipse means? And this might be more relevant for Damion of Lombardi.
Heredia: Let me talk about a few areas that we really take advantage of. One is in prototyping. Some of the challenges around innovation always lead to how you get the idea from the white board to what we put in the hands of the users in the market. With Swing, in our previous development environments, it would take two to three weeks to develop a prototype of that innovation. Whereas with Eclipse it would take me two or three days, especially with Eclipse 3.2 and the GMF project.
With the Graphical Modeling Project we've been able to have tools at our disposal that we can extend and build around. Getting the function out of these graphical modeling tools is greatly increasing our ability to deliver something to market. Like you said, it's just a substantial reduction of time to the prototype phase, which ultimately means that I am going to deliver the right solution faster. At the same time, we then take that extra time to put it in the hands of the users and iterate with them more quickly, especially with our beta sponsors and other design sponsors. So, the idea is fresh, and we come with the best solution possible.
Gardner: I want to poke at that modeling issue a little bit. A lot of organizations recognized in the long-term that modeling makes a lot of sense. It's sort of like for your own health, you've got to eat well and exercise a lot, but sometimes you just never get to it. Is there any thing about Eclipse that helps you move toward modeling? Is there an Eclipse accelerant to modeling that is somehow part-and-parcel with the adoption of it, or is it just a path you were going to take anyway?
Heredia: Eclipse, both the EMF framework and now with GMF, which came down with Eclipse 3.2, played very well with our internal approach to TeamWorks as a whole. We’ve taken a shared model approach.
So, we want our customers to model the process, the business process and not to write code or scripts or worry about maintaining assets of code, but to worry [instead] about the model itself, and then during runtime interpret that for the actual business process. So, when we moved to Eclipse, that paradigm holds well.
Now, with Eclipse 3.2 we’re taking that to a whole new level -- 3.2 with the GMF is going to allow us to have our customers extend a meta model in a way that it’s scalable, it’s maintainable, and it fits well with the developers’ skill sets. So, it allows them to add attributes and new components and extend the meta model, using graphical tools that are delivered from Eclipse projects.
Gardner: So, better requirements process, reuse of modeling, faster time to market, and more agility to react to markets. How about back to that question about money or at least a percentage of effort. Do you have any kind of metric that you would say Eclipse is doing "blank" for us?
Heredia: I wouldn’t disclose any monetary amounts, but I think the example I gave holds pretty well, in the sense of something that will take two three weeks in Swing takes me two to three days in Eclipse. That's powerful, especially for developers who do not like doing the monotonous, tedious work of designing the infrastructure of a user interface. They want to focus on the function that’s going to add value.
Gardner: How about you, Maher? Do you have any sense of a return on investment here; do you have any metrics you can apply to what Eclipse allows for you and your customers?
Masri: I can give you a very simple metric from our perspective. When MyEclipse was launched in January 2003, we had less then 10 developers allocated to the project. And then, in less than three years, we emerged to be one of the leaders in the tools space, competing on features with companies an order or two orders of magnitude larger than we are.
You could not find a better metric than that. The platform allowed us the ability to, as I said, innovate and incrementally build solutions and add features over time in a rapid manner. We rely on the reliability and the quality of the underlying platforms, such that we exude confidence that the end users are adopting solutions of equal, if not better, value than what they can find somewhere else.
Gardner: I suppose the bottom line here is just far better developer productivity.
Masri: Absolutely. And again, it’s much more than the technology itself. It’s the ability to incrementally deliver solutions over time without having to wait the traditional two years that are required in a soup-to-nuts implementation of a new solution.
In the past, for every solution that you delivered, you had to wait anywhere between 12 and 24 months to deliver a new IDE and new product, because you had to reinvent everything inside that framework. Contrast to that to a breadboard that allows you to add functionalities and features without modifying that breadboard over time. Or better yet, let somebody else worry about that over time. It gives you a leg up on the competition that don’t choose that path.
Gardner: And so, I suppose, there's benefit of adoption, a benefit over time, and then sort of a tax or penalty for those who don’t get that community benefit and reduced time-to-market that will accelerate and keep building.
Masri: Add to that the gravity of the critical mass on the commerce side. As this was described by us at Lombardi: The more people that use it, they find it more convenient to adopt the same technology. The pull that happens as a part of the larger community of users is dragging everybody in this direction. It certainly helps people like us all who want faster adoption from the commerce side.
Gardner: It’s almost like there is, in effect, here -- where Eclipse is making you an offer you can’t refuse -- but it’s doing it in a way that’s a community-based way, rather than a top-down or lock-in way.
Masri: That's a lesson we learned early on in delivering our business solution, and that’s how we were able to innovate -- by removing any friction from the end user adoption, and allowing them to adopt the solution, because it was literally a no brainier at that point in time.
Gardner: I know you are both active in the Eclipse community, and you probably make your wish list known that way. But for the benefit of our audience: Looking forward, what would you like to see brought to the Eclipse community that would help you in your business -- that is to say, have a direct business benefit to you? Why don’t we start with Damion, what’s on your wish list for the future?
Heredia: Yeah, one of the things is what came in Eclipse 3.2 is the GMF, but I think what we are looking to see in the market going forward with Eclipse is commoditization of other technologies. I think integration is a big area that Eclipse can take advantage of and commoditize; a lot of integration work done in IT organizations, especially around Web services with the WTP project, and possibly even legacy integration.
Each vendor has its own flavor of doing it, but in reality it’s a pretty standard thing to do and straight-forward if you have the right tools. In addition to what Eclipse 3.2 brought to the table -- and we’ll see more of the tools that allow developers to model their logic, their business logic, their intent of what the application should do graphically -- I think we’ll see a move away from just writing code and more about maintaining the model. It represents what your application is supposed to do, and then whether it's interpreting or generating code at the back end, letting that model derive the functionality of the app.
Gardner: How about Maher? With you at Genuitec, what’s on your wish list for Eclipse?
Masri: It’s truly a simple wish -- and we’re seeing traction toward that end. It’s simply to see the visible adoption for industry protocols of the platform. We’re certainly well subscribed in terms of the tools market, well represented in terms of the commoditization or normalization is taking place around the technology itself. There is quite a quite a bit of need out there in the manufacturing world -- pharmaceuticals, for example -- that would greatly benefit from adopting the rich-client platform as part of their desktop or their application delivery life-cycle that will benefit everyone in the long term.
I suppose there is also an opportunity for community to develop right within that vertical industry for specifics that have to do with logic and issues and taxonomy and schema and all these other things that are very granular and specific but that again can benefit from a community process.
Gardner: Well, I want to thank you both for sharing. I think it’s been a good discussion. It really helped me better understand why Eclipse has taken off so quickly. It’s clear from you folks who are benefiting from it that you see some passion and a long-term process here.
Well, joining us for this discussion on some of the business benefits of Eclipse, an ISV, Lombardi Software, and representing the company is Damion Heredia, the director of product management. Thanks very much, Damion.
Heredia: Thank you for having me.
Gardner: And also on a tools side, an Eclipse-based tools maker, Genuitec. And representing that is the CEO Maher Masri. Thanks for joining.
Masri: Thank you, Dana.
Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions. You’ve been listening to BriefingsDirect and an Eclipse Foundation-sponsored discussion about the business benefits of Eclipse. Thanks for listening.
Podcast sponsor: Eclipse Foundation. Listen to the podcast here.
Transcript of Dana Gardner’s BriefingsDirect podcast on the impact of Eclipse on ISVs. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2006. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
